A Pilot Study Comparing Dimensional Alterations After Alveolar Ridge Preservation with Xenograft Versus Allograft.

IF 1.1
Daniel Rolotti, Lan-Lin Chiou, Martin Freilich, Aditya Tadinada, Ajay Dhingra, Sejal Thacker
{"title":"A Pilot Study Comparing Dimensional Alterations After Alveolar Ridge Preservation with Xenograft Versus Allograft.","authors":"Daniel Rolotti, Lan-Lin Chiou, Martin Freilich, Aditya Tadinada, Ajay Dhingra, Sejal Thacker","doi":"10.11607/prd.7732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This single-center pilot randomized clinical trial compared ridge dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with allograft (AG) versus xenograft (XG) in non molar sites with buccal dehiscence defects. 12 patients (6 per group) needing a single rooted tooth extraction were included. After extraction, sockets were grafted with the assigned bone substitute, covered with an absorbable membrane and collagen matrix. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken at two time points: immediately post surgery and six months later. The need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement was evaluated using implant planning software. Six months after ARP, AG demonstrated significantly better ridge width preservation (0.41 mm vs. 1.78 mm for XG, measured at 2 mm below the crest; p = 0.007). A trend favoring XG for better preservation of buccal and palatal/lingual ridge height was observed, though differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.58, respectively). Only one site (8.3%), from the AG group, required additional bone augmentation at implant placement. This pilot clinical trial suggests allograft and xenograft were both able to minimize dimensional changes when used for ARP in non-molar extraction sites with buccal dehiscence defect. Allograft may be more effective in minimizing ridge width reduction 2 mm from the crest while the xenograft appears to better preserve ridge height. Both bone graft materials are effective in reducing the need for additional bone augmentation; however, larger clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This single-center pilot randomized clinical trial compared ridge dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with allograft (AG) versus xenograft (XG) in non molar sites with buccal dehiscence defects. 12 patients (6 per group) needing a single rooted tooth extraction were included. After extraction, sockets were grafted with the assigned bone substitute, covered with an absorbable membrane and collagen matrix. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken at two time points: immediately post surgery and six months later. The need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement was evaluated using implant planning software. Six months after ARP, AG demonstrated significantly better ridge width preservation (0.41 mm vs. 1.78 mm for XG, measured at 2 mm below the crest; p = 0.007). A trend favoring XG for better preservation of buccal and palatal/lingual ridge height was observed, though differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.58, respectively). Only one site (8.3%), from the AG group, required additional bone augmentation at implant placement. This pilot clinical trial suggests allograft and xenograft were both able to minimize dimensional changes when used for ARP in non-molar extraction sites with buccal dehiscence defect. Allograft may be more effective in minimizing ridge width reduction 2 mm from the crest while the xenograft appears to better preserve ridge height. Both bone graft materials are effective in reducing the need for additional bone augmentation; however, larger clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.

一项比较异种移植与同种移植保存牙槽嵴后尺寸变化的初步研究。
这项单中心试点随机临床试验比较了同种异体移植(AG)和异种移植(XG)在非磨牙部位颊裂缺陷的牙槽嵴保存(ARP)后牙槽嵴尺寸的变化。12例患者(每组6例)需要单根拔牙。拔牙后,将指定的骨替代物移植到骨槽上,并覆盖一层可吸收膜和胶原基质。锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)在两个时间点进行:手术后立即和六个月后。使用种植体计划软件评估种植体放置时是否需要额外的骨增强。ARP后6个月,AG表现出更好的脊宽保存(0.41 mm比XG的1.78 mm,测量在波峰以下2 mm;P = 0.007)。观察到XG有利于更好地保存颊和腭/舌脊高度的趋势,尽管差异无统计学意义(p分别= 0.11和0.58)。AG组只有一个部位(8.3%)在植入时需要额外的骨增强。本初步临床试验表明,同种异体和异种移植物在用于有颊裂缺陷的非磨牙拔牙部位时都能最大限度地减少尺寸变化。同种异体移植物可以更有效地将嵴宽度减小2毫米,而异种移植物似乎可以更好地保持嵴高度。这两种骨移植材料都有效地减少了对额外骨增强的需求;然而,需要更大规模的临床研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信