Evaluation and comparison of histologic changes and implant survival in extraction sites immediately grafted with two different xenografts: A randomized clinical pilot study

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this prospective, single‐center randomized pilot study was to histologically evaluate and compare vital bone development in premolar and molar‐extraction sites grafted with two different bovine‐derived xenografts. The secondary outcome of interest was implant survival in the grafted sites. Materials and Methods Adult patients in need of at least two tooth extractions were enrolled. A paired design was used; each patient received at least one of each type of graft at different sites. Each extraction site was randomized to one of two xenograft treatment groups. A resorbable membrane was always placed, and primary intention soft tissue closure was achieved. Four months later, implants were placed and a trephine drill was used to remove bone cores for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Results Sixteen patients with 40 extraction sites were enrolled; 20 sites were grafted with one type of xenograft and 20 with another. Mean patient age was 53.5 years, and 65% of patients were male. Evaluation of bone core samples taken from grafted sites showed no significant difference in the mean value of percentage of new bone formation between the different grafted sites (33.4% and 32.4%, p = .76). Cumulative implant survival was 97.5% at the 24‐month follow‐up visit. Conclusion Within the limitations of this pilot study, no statistically significant differences in new bone growth between sites grafted with two different types of xenograft were found. Both graft materials promoted the formation of new bone and provided osseous support for implant placement after socket grafting.

Histological and dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction when using collagen matrix and collagen‐embedded xenogenic bone substitute: A randomized clinical trial

“…Our histological results are in accordance with the literature: 33.79 ± 17.37% vital bone at the grafted sites and 51.14 ± 23.04% at sites of spontaneous healing. Similar results (~30% vital bone) were reported by other investigators that used DBBM‐C for ridge preservation 7,27 . In other studies which used particulated DBBM grafts for ARP, the amount of newly formed bone varied from 21.5% after 4–6 months 6 to 43% after 9 months 28 .…”

“…The usage of bone grafts in fresh sockets for ARP was introduced in the 1980s 4 . With time, different ARP procedures evolved, using different bone substitutes, as allografts, 5 alloplasts, 6 and xenografts 7 and xenografts embedded in collagen 8…”

“…3 The usage of bone grafts in fresh sockets for ARP was introduced in the 1980s. 4 With time, different ARP procedures evolved, using different bone substitutes, as allografts, 5 alloplasts, 6 and xenografts 7 and xenografts embedded in collagen. 8 Free autogenous connective tissue grafts are sometimes used to seal the extraction sites; while this procedure is considered beneficial, it is somewhat unpredicted.…”

Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Some studies [ 8 , 9 ] have shown that placement of implants into the previously grafted sockets is comparable to that into the non-grafted sites.…”

Ridge preservation in molar sites comparing xenograft versus mineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft: A randomized clinical trial

“…The utilization of DBBM resulted in 46.44% of VB, while the application of FDBA exhibited a 48.54%. A previous research using DBBM have found a 32,4% of VB, after 4 months (Sivolella et al, 2020), while two investigations observed 27.35% (Gholami et al, 2012) and 31.4% (Barone et al, 2013), at 6 months. Similarly, the use of FDBA has also reported inferior results in terms of VB than the ones obtained in the present investigation, showing a 26.40% of new bone formation, after 18–20 weeks (Demetter et al, 2017).…”