Use of a Non-Crosslinked Collagen Membrane During Guided Bone Regeneration Does Not Interfere With the Bone Regenerative Capacity of the Periosteum

Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo; Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de; Scardueli, Cássio Rocha; Medeiros, Marcell Costa de; Stavropoulos, Andreas; Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.07.004

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Human placental allograft membranes [ 12 ], collagen sponges [ 8 ], and xenogenic non-crosslinked collagen matrices have also been utilized to seal sockets in this manner. Histologic studies of non-crosslinked collagen matrices in non-submerged or submerged environments revealed complete integration with mature mucosal and submucosal tissues and revascularization of the membrane after 3 months [ 14 , 15 ]. Clinically, collagen matrices, when utilized as a barrier during ARP, are associated with a sufficient width of newly formed keratinized soft tissue [ 8 , 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes? Materials and methods Parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating ≥ 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO). Results Twelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions Coverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis. Clinical relevance Autologous soft tissue grafts and membranes covering graft materials in post-extraction sites were proved to allow lower hard tissue shrinkage compared to the absence of coverage material with sealing effect. Histomorphometric analyses showed that non-crosslinked membranes provide improved hard tissue regeneration when compared to crosslinked ones.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30 Use of a non-crosslinked collagen membrane during guided bone regeneration does not interfere with the bone regenerative capacity of the periosteum. 31 Oct 2018, Vol. 76, Issue 10 41 4 (9.75%) Do antiplatelet drugs increase the risk of bleeding after dental implant surgery?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS: "DENTAL IMPLANTS" SECTION OF THE JOMS J DIAGN TREAT ORAL MAXILLOFAC PATHOL 2020; 4(2):[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

February’s 2020 Full Issue PDF

2020

J. Diagn. Treat. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a monthly peer-reviewed oral and maxillofacial surgery journal focused on: Microvascular and jaw reconstructive surgery, dental implants, salivary gland tumors/diseases, TMJ lesions, virtual surgical planning, implementation of ultrasonography into the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Editorial Board (EB) CompositionEB shows significant geographic diversity representing 24 opinion leaders from 13 countries: Brazil,

show abstract

“…An important methodological aspect regarding this study is the type of barrier used to isolate the calvaria defects from the scalp soft tissue. In this study, the periosteum was used to cover the calvaria defects since if this tissue is kept intact without cuts at this base, the periosteum presents potential to induce bone tissue formation similar to the use of resorbable membranes 21 . Comparing the use of different types of membranes, it was previous showed that the non-resorbable membranes induces more bone formation in empty calvaria defects compared with the non-resorbable membranes 22 , however, when the calvaria defects were grafted with a bone substitute the use of the non-resorbable membrane not provide more bone formation in these defects 23 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Histomorphometric comparison of two different preclinical models to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas

Lima,

Soares,

Pereira

et al. 2024

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study was performed to compare two different rat defect models (critical calvaria defects versus guided bone regeneration in the mandibular ramus) used to evaluate bone repair in grafted areas. Methods: A total of 12 rats were allocated in two groups according the experimental model used to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas: a critical sized-calvaria defect of 5 mm filled with bone graft (n=6) and a mandibular ramus filled with the bone graft associated with a Teflon dome-shaped membrane (n=6). Both groups were grafted with deproteinized bovine bone graft. After 60 days, the animals were euthanized and the samples obtained were submitted to histomorphometry analysis to evaluate the relative amount of bone, remaining bone substitute, and soft tissue within the grafted areas. Results: No differences were observed between the preclinical models evaluated in relation to the amount of bone tissue formation (19.93 ± 4.55% in calvaria vs. 21.00 ± 8.20% in mandible). However, there was a smaller amount of soft tissue (43.20 ± 10.97% vs. 57.79 ± 7.61 %; p<0.01) and a greater amount of bone substitute remaining (35.80 ± 5.52% vs. 22.28 ± 4.36 %; p<0.05) in the grafted areas in the mandible compared to calvaria defect. Conclusion: Preclinical models for the analysis of bone repair in grafted areas in the mandible and critical sized-calvaria defects showed different responses in relation to the amount of soft tissue and bone substitute remnants.

show abstract

Use of a Non-Crosslinked Collagen Membrane During Guided Bone Regeneration Does Not Interfere With the Bone Regenerative Capacity of the Periosteum

Cited by 6 publications

References 32 publications

Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

February’s 2020 Full Issue PDF

Histomorphometric comparison of two different preclinical models to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About