Alveolar ridge preservation with a collagen material: a randomized controlled trial
10.5051/jpis.2018.48.4.236
- Author:
Sigmar SCHNUTENHAUS
1
;
Isabel DOERING
;
Jens DREYHAUPT
;
Heike RUDOLPH
;
Ralph G LUTHARDT
Author Information
1. Private Practice, Hilzingen, Germany. info@schnutenhaus.de
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial
- Keywords:
Alveolar bone loss;
Alveolar ridge augmentation;
Bone regeneration;
Biocompatible materials;
Tooth extraction
- MeSH:
Alveolar Bone Loss;
Alveolar Process;
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation;
Biocompatible Materials;
Bone Regeneration;
Bone Resorption;
Collagen;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Humans;
Maxilla;
Membranes;
Tooth;
Tooth Extraction
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2018;48(4):236-250
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Resorption of the alveolar bone is an unavoidable consequence of tooth extraction when appropriate alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) measures are not taken. The objective of this trial was to test the hypothesis that dimensional changes in the alveolar bone after tooth extraction would be reduced by inserting an equine collagen membrane and a collagen cone to fill and seal the alveolus (as ARP), in comparison to extraction with untreated alveoli. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 31 patients were directly treated with the collagen material after extraction of a tooth from the maxilla (the ARP group). Twenty-nine patients served as the control group. After extraction, no further treatment (i.e., no socket preservation measures) was performed in the control group. Changes in the alveolar process immediately after extraction and after an 8 (±1)-week healing period were evaluated 3-dimensionally. Blinded analyses were performed after superimposing the data from the digitalized impressions and surfaces generated by cone-beam computed tomography. RESULTS: Both the ARP and control groups showed a reduction of bone in the alveolar area after tooth extraction. However, significantly less bone resorption was detected in the clinically relevant buccal region in the ARP group. The median bone reduction was 1.18 mm in the ARP group and 5.06 mm in the control group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed hypothesis that inserting a combination material comprising a collagen cone and membrane would lead to a difference in alveolar bone preservation can be accepted for the clinically relevant buccal distance. In this area, implantation of the collagen material led to significantly less alveolar bone resorption. German Clinical Trials Register at www.drks.de, DRKS00004769.
