Guided bone regeneration of peri‐implant defects with particulated and block xenogenic bone substitutes

Abstract

AIM To test whether an equine bone substitute block used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant defects renders different results from bovine block or particulated bone substitutes regarding the dimensions of the augmented ridge and the amount of new bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS Mandibular premolars and molars were extracted in eight dogs. After 4 months, four semisaddle bone defects were created in each mandible and one titanium implant was inserted into every site. Bone augmentation by GBR was attempted using the following randomly assigned modalities: (i) particulated deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) + a collagen membrane (CM), (ii) block DBBM + CM, (iii) equine bone substitute block + CM, and (iv) empty controls. After 4 months, one central and two lateral sections of each site were prepared. Descriptive histological and histomorphometrical assessments were performed evaluating the augmented area (AA) within the former bone defect, the area of mineralized tissue (MT), non-mineralized tissue (NMT), and residual bone substitute (BS) within AA, the horizontal thicknesses of the augmented region (HTaugm ) and of the mucosa (HTmucosa ). RESULTS At the central sections, AA measured 11.2 ± 3.3 mm(2) for the equine block, 9.5 ± 2.6 mm(2) for DBBM block, 7.9 ± 4.8 mm(2) for particulated DBBM, and 2.4 ± 2.1 mm(2) for the empty control. All GBR groups rendered significantly higher values of AA in comparison with control (P 0.05). The differences in AA between GBR groups did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). The equine block rendered the highest values in HTaugm , although only the differences between equine block and control as well as equine block and DBBM block were statistically significant (P 0.05). With respect to HTmucosa , all GBR groups reached significantly higher values compared to control (P 0.05). The equine block revealed the most pronounced signs of graft degradation. CONCLUSIONS Guided bone regeneration lead to higher ridge dimensions and thicker covering mucosa than empty controls. The equine block with CM resulted in the most favorable outcomes regarding the maintenance of ridge contour. There were no significant differences regarding amount of new bone between GBR treatments. Material & Methods: Mandibular premolars and molars were extracted in 8 dogs.After 4 months, four semi-saddle bone defects were created in each mandible and one titanium implant was inserted into every site. Bone augmentation by GBR was attempted using the following randomly assigned modalities: (1) (primary outcome parameter) and of the mucosa (HT mucosa ).Results: At the central sections AA measured 11.2 ± 3.3 mm 2 for the equine block, 9.5 ± 2.6 mm 2 for DBBM block, 7.9 ± 4.8 mm 2 for particulated DBBM, and 2.4 ± 2.1 mm 2 for the empty control. All GBR groups rendered significantly higher values of AA in comparison to control (p ≤ 0.05). The differences in AA between GBR groups did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). The equine block rendered the highest values in HT augm , ...

Effects of Strontium Ranelate on Alveolar Ridge Morphology Augmentation

“…On the other hand SR has shown an increase in the alkaline phosphatase activity which is a marker for an increase in collagen synthesis and osteoblast differentiation. This supports the result which shows an improvement of the primary stability to the secondary stability (Canalis et al, 1996;Barbara et al, 2004;Kim et al, 2015).…”

“…As from the results of the present study, alveolar ridge augmentation and Strontium Renalate following immediate implant placement have shown to provide good primary and secondary stability (Benic et al, 2016). The study, showed a highly statistically significant difference in the primary and secondary stability values in Group A (Alveolar ridge augmentation), even though the procedure was technique sensitive and is similar to the results that single-stage implant placement and simultaneous grafting with mineralized particulate allograft showed promising outcome in correcting small and medium sized vertical labial wall defects.…”

Randomized, controlled clinical two‐centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 or autogenous bone blocks for lateral ridge augmentation

“…Due to the size of the defect and thereby a further need of stability of the augmentation in the present study, the DBBM block was used. These blocks have shown a rather poor ingrowth of bone in a pre‐clinical study, but appeared to be efficient in keeping the augmented dimension (Benic et al., ). Apart from this, a clinical case series demonstrated successful primary augmentation using the same DBBM block material.…”

The influence of collagen membrane and autogenous bone chips on bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a preclinical study

“…Another analysis performed in the canine mandible showed that bovine bone blocks stabilizing a collagen membrane yielded less soft tissue ingrowth than the same material used as particulate graft under the same membrane (Benic et al. ).…”