皮质松质胶原蛋白猪骨用于牙槽嵴保存：一项队列比较研究

IF 4 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-08-25 DOI:10.1111/cid.70085

Chiara Cinquini, Emira D'amico, Giovanna Iezzi, Mattia Priami, Simonetta Santarelli, Antonio Barone

{"title":"皮质松质胶原蛋白猪骨用于牙槽嵴保存：一项队列比较研究","authors":"Chiara Cinquini, Emira D'amico, Giovanna Iezzi, Mattia Priami, Simonetta Santarelli, Antonio Barone","doi":"10.1111/cid.70085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The primary aim of this study was to compare the histomorphometric characteristics of two different cortico-cancellous collagenic porcine bone (CCPB) formulations combined with a stabilizing agent used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), and the secondary aim was to evaluate and compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes of dental implants placed in augmented sites.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a prospective, cohort-comparative study conducted on patients requiring a tooth extraction followed by ARP and subsequent implant placement. Tooth extractions were performed trying to reduce the surgical trauma as much as possible, and then ARP was performed using two different formulations of CCPB combined with a thermogel in different ratios (50:50 hand-mixed and 80:20 pre-mixed). After 4 months of healing, implant placement was performed, and a bone biopsy was retrieved from the surgical site for histomorphometric analyses. Implants were rehabilitated 3 months following placement with screw-retained crowns, then patients were re-evaluated 1 year following prosthetic loading.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We report the clinical and histomorphometric outcomes of 20 patients divided into the two study groups (10 patients per group). ARP performed with a hand-mixed biomaterial in a 50:50 ratio had higher percentages of newly formed bone (36.15% vs. 27.18%) when compared to a pre-mixed biomaterial in an 80:20 ratio, even though the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.064). Implants placed in ARP-treated sites showed a very low mean marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up in both experimental groups (0.06 ± 0.15 mm in the 50:50 group and 0.25 ± 0.35 mm in the 80:20 group) with no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> = 0.42), as well as the aesthetic outcomes assessed through the pink aesthetic score.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Both biomaterials showed effective and favorable outcomes, and the histomorphometric differences observed in our sample did not have any impact on the final clinical and aesthetic outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cortico-Cancellous Collagenic Porcine Bone for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Cohort Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Cinquini, Emira D'amico, Giovanna Iezzi, Mattia Priami, Simonetta Santarelli, Antonio Barone\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.70085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The primary aim of this study was to compare the histomorphometric characteristics of two different cortico-cancellous collagenic porcine bone (CCPB) formulations combined with a stabilizing agent used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), and the secondary aim was to evaluate and compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes of dental implants placed in augmented sites.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a prospective, cohort-comparative study conducted on patients requiring a tooth extraction followed by ARP and subsequent implant placement. Tooth extractions were performed trying to reduce the surgical trauma as much as possible, and then ARP was performed using two different formulations of CCPB combined with a thermogel in different ratios (50:50 hand-mixed and 80:20 pre-mixed). After 4 months of healing, implant placement was performed, and a bone biopsy was retrieved from the surgical site for histomorphometric analyses. Implants were rehabilitated 3 months following placement with screw-retained crowns, then patients were re-evaluated 1 year following prosthetic loading.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We report the clinical and histomorphometric outcomes of 20 patients divided into the two study groups (10 patients per group). ARP performed with a hand-mixed biomaterial in a 50:50 ratio had higher percentages of newly formed bone (36.15% vs. 27.18%) when compared to a pre-mixed biomaterial in an 80:20 ratio, even though the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.064). Implants placed in ARP-treated sites showed a very low mean marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up in both experimental groups (0.06 ± 0.15 mm in the 50:50 group and 0.25 ± 0.35 mm in the 80:20 group) with no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> = 0.42), as well as the aesthetic outcomes assessed through the pink aesthetic score.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both biomaterials showed effective and favorable outcomes, and the histomorphometric differences observed in our sample did not have any impact on the final clinical and aesthetic outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70085\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的主要目的是比较两种不同的皮质松质胶原猪骨（CCPB）配方与用于牙槽嵴保存（ARP）的稳定剂的组织形态学特征，次要目的是评估和比较放置在增强部位的牙种植体的临床和美学结果。材料和方法这是一项前瞻性的队列比较研究，对需要拔牙，然后进行ARP和随后的种植体放置的患者进行了研究。拔牙尽量减少手术创伤，然后使用两种不同配方的CCPB与不同比例的热凝胶（50:50手工混合和80:20预混合）进行ARP。愈合4个月后，进行种植体植入，并从手术部位取骨活检进行组织形态学分析。植入螺钉保留冠3个月后修复种植体，然后在植入假体1年后对患者进行重新评估。我们报告了将20例患者分为两个研究组（每组10例）的临床和组织形态学结果。与以80:20比例预先混合的生物材料相比，以50:50比例手工混合的生物材料进行ARP的新骨形成百分比更高（36.15% vs. 27.18%），尽管差异无统计学意义（p = 0.064）。在1年的随访中，两个实验组放置在arp处理部位的种植体的平均边缘骨损失非常低（50:50组为0.06±0.15 mm， 80:20组为0.25±0.35 mm），差异无统计学意义（p = 0.42），通过粉红色美学评分评估美学结果。结论两种生物材料均具有良好的效果，在我们的样本中观察到的组织形态学差异对最终的临床和美学结果没有任何影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Cortico-Cancellous Collagenic Porcine Bone for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Cohort Comparative Study

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to compare the histomorphometric characteristics of two different cortico-cancellous collagenic porcine bone (CCPB) formulations combined with a stabilizing agent used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), and the secondary aim was to evaluate and compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes of dental implants placed in augmented sites.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective, cohort-comparative study conducted on patients requiring a tooth extraction followed by ARP and subsequent implant placement. Tooth extractions were performed trying to reduce the surgical trauma as much as possible, and then ARP was performed using two different formulations of CCPB combined with a thermogel in different ratios (50:50 hand-mixed and 80:20 pre-mixed). After 4 months of healing, implant placement was performed, and a bone biopsy was retrieved from the surgical site for histomorphometric analyses. Implants were rehabilitated 3 months following placement with screw-retained crowns, then patients were re-evaluated 1 year following prosthetic loading.

Results

We report the clinical and histomorphometric outcomes of 20 patients divided into the two study groups (10 patients per group). ARP performed with a hand-mixed biomaterial in a 50:50 ratio had higher percentages of newly formed bone (36.15% vs. 27.18%) when compared to a pre-mixed biomaterial in an 80:20 ratio, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.064). Implants placed in ARP-treated sites showed a very low mean marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up in both experimental groups (0.06 ± 0.15 mm in the 50:50 group and 0.25 ± 0.35 mm in the 80:20 group) with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.42), as well as the aesthetic outcomes assessed through the pink aesthetic score.

Conclusions

Both biomaterials showed effective and favorable outcomes, and the histomorphometric differences observed in our sample did not have any impact on the final clinical and aesthetic outcomes.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.