Ridge preservation using a new 3D collagen matrix: a preclinical study

Roman, Alexandra; Cioban, Cosmin Vasile; Stratul, Ştefan‐Ioan; Schwarz, Frank; Muste, A.; Petruţiu, Ştefan Adrian; Zăgănescu, Raluca; Mihatovic, Ilja

doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1368-1

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No benefit of ridge preservation was observed on the soft tissue level at the day of implant placement compared to sites with spontaneous healing. This is in line with previous reports for spontaneous healing or using a collagen matrix as socket seal following a longer healing period (Jung et al 2013, Lindhe et al 2014, Roman et al 2015.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement – is there a need to remove the biomaterial?

Thoma

Naenni

Benić

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM To assess (i) bone regeneration around implants placed early in sites with or without ridge preservation and (ii) if the bone substitute material (DBBM-C) has to be removed at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS In eight beagle dogs, three sites were randomly assigned to ridge preservation (DBBM-C plus collagen matrix (CMX)) (two sites; RP) or spontaneous healing (1 site; SH). Four weeks later, in one of the RP sites, dental implants were placed without removing the DBBM-C (RP1), whereas in RP2 and SH sites all non-integrated DBBM-C and/or granulation tissue were removed before implant placement and concomitant GBR. Histomorphometric outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS The median buccal fBIC (first bone-to-implant contact) was located more apical in groups RP1: 1.34 mm (0.09; 2.96) and RP2: 1.41 mm (0.54; 2.72) than in group SH: 0.79 mm (0.26; 1.50) (p = 0.452) at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, median buccal fBIC values were for RP1: 0.88 mm (0.00; 2.33), for RP2: 0.16 mm (0.00; 1.33) and for SH: 0.00 mm (0.00; 0.98) (p = 0.362). BIC values increased over 12 weeks in all groups. CONCLUSIONS Ridge preservation followed by early implant placement led to higher BIC values at 12 than at 4 weeks. There is no need to remove the biomaterial at implant placement to ensure osseointegration. No relevant differences were observed between the three groups for any outcome measure. Materials and methods:In eight beagle dogs, three sites were randomly assigned to ridge preservation (DBBM-C plus collagen matrix (CMX)) (two sites; RP) or spontaneous healing(1 site; SH). Four weeks later, in one of the RP sites, dental implants were placed without removing the DBBM-C (RP1), whereas in RP2 and SH sites all non-integrated DBBM-C and/or granulation tissue was removed before implant placement and concomitant GBR.Histomorphometric outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 weeks. Results:The median buccal fBIC (first bone-to-implant contact) was located more apical in Conclusions: Ridge preservation followed by early implant placement led to higher BIC values at 12 than at 4 weeks. There is no need to remove the biomaterial at implant placement to ensure osseointegration. No relevant differences were observed between the three groups for any outcome measure.3 Clinical RelevanceScientific rationale for the study: Alveolar ridge preservation procedures are frequently performed rendering similar implant survival rates as implants placed in native bone.Disadvantages include a relatively long healing time prior to implant placement to allow for maturation of the bone graft material. Early implant placement following ridge preservation has not been investigated so far.Principal findings: Ridge preservation using DBBM-C and a CMX followed by early implant placement leads to higher BIC values at 12 weeks than at 4 weeks. There is no need to remove the biomaterial at implant placement to ensure osseointegration. Practical implications:Alveolar ridge preservation appears to allow for early implant placement without the need to ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement – is there a need to remove the biomaterial?

Thoma

Naenni

Benić

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collagen barriers also have some specific physicochemical properties, including hemostatic activity that allows wound stabilization, chemotactic effects over gingival fibroblasts, and permeability that allows nutrient transfer [23]. Considering the ease of manipulation, decreased risk of flap dehiscence, and low immunogenicity associated with these membranes, they are the ideal barrier materials for socket preservation [24]. An important concern related to the use of bioabsorbable membranes is the speed at which resorption takes place.…”

Section: Biomed Research Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ridge Alterations following Socket Preservation Using a Collagen Membrane in Dogs

Lyu

Shao

Zou

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The healing process following tooth extraction results in alveolar ridge resorption. The dimensional changes may complicate the subsequent implant procedure. Socket preservation using absorbable collagen membranes or a combination of membranes with calcium phosphate cement (CPC) particles might ensure that the alveolar ridge retains a suitable morphology for implant placement. Objective. To evaluate the quality and quantity of new bone regenerated after application of either collagen membranes alone covering the sockets or a combination of membranes with CPC particles added into the sockets in dogs. Materials and Methods. Six dogs were included in this study. The mandibular premolars were extracted. For each hemimandible, three premolar extraction sites were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: a covering collagen membrane, CPC with a covering collagen membrane, and a socket left empty. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements, polyfluorochrome sequential labeling, and histological assessments were performed to investigate the healing ability and repair processes within a 6-month observation period. Results. Buccal bone height in the membrane group was significantly higher than that in the membrane+CPC and blank groups at 4 and 6 months after extraction. The mineral apposition rate over 2-4 months and the alizarin red-stained area in the membrane group were significantly higher than those in the other two groups. Histological analysis after 6 months of healing showed significantly higher amounts of newly formed bone in the membrane group than in the other groups. Conclusion. Extraction sites treated with collagen barrier membranes showed better protection than sites not covered with membranes. And the buccal bone wall of the socket was well preserved by collagen membrane without extra CPC materials. Socket preservation using absorbable membranes alone yielded better quality and quantity of regenerated bone inside the socket site.

show abstract

“…Moreover, Roman et al (27) used collagen membranes and 3D collagen matrices for ridge preservation with no comparison to natural healing. They concluded that collagen plugs showed biologically favorable responses in the healing event, use of collagen matrix alone might have limited effect on maintaining ridge dimension.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ridge Preservation Using Collagen Cone for Implant Site Development: Clinical, Radiographical and Histological Study

Khairy

Ahmed

Elmagd

2017

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: the aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and histological outcomes of extraction socket grafted with collagen cone in comparison to extraction site that healed naturally for implant site development. Patients & Methods: Twenty-six healthy patients require extraction of a single rooted tooth participated in this study. They had been divided into 2 groups. In Group I (control), the extraction socket was left with no graft to heal with secondary intention. While in group II (study), the socket was filled with collagen cone. Implants were inserted in average of 3 months after socket grafting. Cone Beam CT (CBCT) images were done prior to implant insertion to asses height and width of the ridge as well as bone density. Core biopsies were taken during implant placement. While implant stability test (ISQ) were done right after the implant was placed Result: The vertical bone changes at the grafted sockets were significantly lower (p < 0.0001) when compared to non-grafted sockets. Moreover, the width reduction of the grafted sites was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) than the non-grafted group. No significant difference was detected in RFA between two groups. Values of bone density was higher in the grafted sites. Conclusion: the alveolar preservation with collagen cone is an effective way to maintain the ridge dimensions after tooth extractions.

show abstract

Ridge preservation using a new 3D collagen matrix: a preclinical study

Cited by 10 publications

References 52 publications

Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement – is there a need to remove the biomaterial?

Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement – is there a need to remove the biomaterial?

Ridge Alterations following Socket Preservation Using a Collagen Membrane in Dogs

Ridge Preservation Using Collagen Cone for Implant Site Development: Clinical, Radiographical and Histological Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About