The aim of the present study was to compare the half-packed grafts that are covered with either a collagen or a nonresorbable membrane to the conventional alveolar ridge preservation procedures involving full-packed grafts and collagen membrane. The primary purpose was to evaluate the bone dimensional changes between the groups, and the secondary objective was to assess the potential contributing factors to clinical, radiographic and implant-related outcomes under different alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
Regarding different surgical approaches in alveolar ridge preservation, limited studies directly compare collagen and non-resorbable membrane, and the comparison between half- and full- grafting strategy in clinical and radiographic outcomes was still lacking. The comparable effect of dimensional preservation between groups was shown except for more radiographic bone gain in full-grafting group. Contributing factors, including thin bone thickness , vertical root fracture related sockets, non-molar sites and large BPD might attenuate the effect of ARP. At implant placement, similar results in bone quality and keratinized mucosal width was found in all groups, while thicker vertical mucosal thickness was obtained when using nonresorbable membrane. All surgical modalities in alveolar ridge preservation yield stable peri-implant health 1 year after implant placement.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
60
Different grafting strategy of alveolar ridge preservation with different sealing materials
Taipei Chang Gung Memorial hospital
Taipei, Taiwan
bone dimensional changes between the groups
Based on CBCT images, horizontal measurements by using AVIZO software (version 7.0, FEI). The measurements were repeated twice at a 2-week interval, and mean values were used for the final analysis (width or height in millimeters, mm): * Buccal bone plate thickness (BT) at 1 mm, 3mm, 5mm apical to the crest * Horizontal ridge width (HRW) at 1 at 1 mm, 3mm, 5mm apical to the crest * The change of HRW at 1, 3, 5 mm apical to crest (T2-T1). Vertical measurements in cross-sectional images: * Buccal bone height (BH)(mm) * Palatal/lingual bone height (PH)(mm) * The discrepancy between buccal and palatal/lingual height.(mm) * Midcrestal height (Mid-H)(mm) * The change of BH, PH, and Mid-H between immediate post-operative and 6 months later. (T2-T1)(mm).
Time frame: 6-month healing period after alveolar ridge preservation
Clinical and implant related outcomes
Other clinical and implant-related parameters with descriptions: * Demographic data * Keratinized mucosal width (KMW)(mm) * Vertical mucosal thickness (VMT): measured from the mucosal profile to the crest of the ridge using a periodontal probe after buccal full-thickness flap elevation (Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA)(mm) * Bone density: Lekholm and Zarb's classification as types 1, 2, 3, or 4 * Insertion torque: recorded once the implant was placed at the anticipated level with primary stability (NCM) * Marginal bone level change(mm) Based on the results of the normality tests, one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey HSD or Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn's test was performed for intergroup comparisons. The Chi-square association test (X2) was used to compare categorical variables between groups. Univariate linear regression methods were performed to investigate the factors to the changes of ridge width and height.
Time frame: 6-month healing period after alveolar ridge preservation
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.