Ridge preservation comparing the clinical and histologic healing of a demineralized particulate bone allograft vs. mineralized particulate cancellous allograft using barrier membrane.

Abstract

Ridge preservation comparing the clinical and histologic healing of a demineralized particulate bone allograft vs. mineralized particulate cancellous allograft using barrier membrane. Aim. Differences in the healing of demineralized and mineralized allografts have been reported but their significance has not been evaluated in ridge preservation studies. The primary aims of this study were to compare ridge preservation using a mineralized cancellous allograft to a demineralized cortical allograft plus a PTFE barrier using clinical and histologic data to assess the outcomes. Veneta Kotevska University of LouisvilleMethods. Twelve positive controls received an intrasocket mineralized cancellous particulate allograft (500-800 JIm, Cancellous group) while twelve test patients received an intrasocket demineralized particulate allograft (250 to 710 JIm, Demineralized group).All sites included in the study were covered with a PTFE barrier. Only nonmolar sites were included. Following tooth extraction and 4 month re-entry, horizontal ridge dimensions were measured with a digital caliper and vertical ridge changes were measured from a stent. Each site was re-entered for implant placement at about 4 v months. Prior to implant placement, a 2.7 X 6 mm trephine core was obtained and preserved in formalin for histologic analysis.

Ridge Preservation Comparing Socket Allograft Alone to Socket Allograft Plus Facial Overlay Xenograft: A Clinical and Histologic Study in Humans

“…It adds time and expense to the ridge-preservation procedure, so there should be a compelling reason to complicate the grafting procedure by using additional graft material. Data from ridge-preservation sites from this study and other studies at the University of Louisville (two publications and five master's theses) 9,18,[44][45][46][47][48] indicate that maxillary sites tend to have more resorption than mandibular sites and that maxillary anterior sites tend to have the highest percentage of lost ridge width compared to other sites (Table 4). 9,18,[44][45][46][47][48] Another consideration in maxillary anterior sites is that there is often a significant undercut or ridge concavity that extends corono-apically.…”