Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols
Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols. Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of periodontology (1970) 2013-05, Vol.84 (5), p.585-594 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 594 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 585 |
| container_title | Journal of periodontology (1970) |
| container_volume | 84 |
| creator | Cook, Deana Clare Mealey, Brian L. |
| description | Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols.
Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant placement were randomly allocated into two ridge preservation protocol groups. Protocol 1 used a xenograft material consisting of 90% anorganic bovine bone in combination with 10% porcine collagen fibers combined with a resorbable bilayer membrane composed of non‐cross‐linked porcine types I and III collagen. Protocol 2 used a xenograft sponge composed of 70% cross‐linked type I bovine collagen coated with a layer of non‐sintered hydroxyapatite mineral on its surface combined with a resorbable membrane composed of type I porcine collagen cross‐linked by natural ribose glycation. Following 21 weeks of healing, clinical measurements were repeated, and a core biopsy was obtained and prepared for histologic evaluation of percentages of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other (CT/other).
Results: Similar percentages of CT/other were detected between protocols, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.763). A significantly greater percentage of vital bone was detected in specimens in protocol 2 (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1902/jop.2012.120219 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1346583206</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1346583206</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3435-8a2e884a21deaf301822297c7b5f29204c8210a5855c5454607fbd2c1cdc32643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1vEzEQhi0EoqFw5ob2yGXT8dje7B5RSAlVJaqqFdwsx2sHV85OsDcNFX8ep2m5cpoPPfNK8zD2nsOUd4Bnd7SdInCccgTk3Qs24Z0UtWhm8JJNABBrITs8YW9yvisjlwJesxPEpgUBMGF_liGPFGkdbDWnzdakkGmoyFdLZ2IY1tU5xUj7Q3dDNP6sFr_HZOwYCvU9lPk69GtXXSWXXbo3j_vb_IjvqfocvHfJDWP1ww20TsaPBaWRLMX8lr3yJmb37qmestvzxc18WV9--_J1_umytkIKVbcGXdtKg7x3xgvgLSJ2MztbKY8dgrQtcjCqVcoqqWQDM7_q0XLbW4GNFKfs4zF3m-jXzuVRb0K2LkYzONplzYVsVCsQmoKeHVGbKOfkvN6msDHpQXPQB-O6GNcH4_povFx8eArfrTau_8c_Ky6AOgL7EN3D__L0xdXiGsov4i9WCI1n</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1346583206</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Cook, Deana Clare ; Mealey, Brian L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cook, Deana Clare ; Mealey, Brian L.</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols.
Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant placement were randomly allocated into two ridge preservation protocol groups. Protocol 1 used a xenograft material consisting of 90% anorganic bovine bone in combination with 10% porcine collagen fibers combined with a resorbable bilayer membrane composed of non‐cross‐linked porcine types I and III collagen. Protocol 2 used a xenograft sponge composed of 70% cross‐linked type I bovine collagen coated with a layer of non‐sintered hydroxyapatite mineral on its surface combined with a resorbable membrane composed of type I porcine collagen cross‐linked by natural ribose glycation. Following 21 weeks of healing, clinical measurements were repeated, and a core biopsy was obtained and prepared for histologic evaluation of percentages of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other (CT/other).
Results: Similar percentages of CT/other were detected between protocols, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.763). A significantly greater percentage of vital bone was detected in specimens in protocol 2 (P <0.001). Protocol 1 presented with a mean of 32.83% ± 14.72% vital bone, 13.44% ± 11.57% residual graft material, and 53.73% ± 6.76% CT/other. Protocol 2 presented with a mean of 47.03% ± 9.09% vital bone, no detectable residual graft material, and 52.97% ± 9.09% CT/other. Clinically, no significant differences in dimensional changes were evident between ridge preservation protocols.
Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinical and histologic differences seen when using these two xenograft protocols for ridge preservation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3492</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3670</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.120219</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22680300</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Academy of Periodontology</publisher><subject>Absorbable Implants ; Adult ; Aged ; Alveolar bone loss ; Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology ; Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology ; Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control ; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods ; Animals ; Bone Regeneration ; bone resorption ; Bone Transplantation - methods ; Cattle ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; dental implants ; Dentistry ; Female ; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods ; Humans ; Male ; Membranes, Artificial ; Middle Aged ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Swine ; tooth extraction ; Tooth Extraction - adverse effects ; Tooth Socket - surgery ; Transplantation, Heterologous - methods ; Wound Healing - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of periodontology (1970), 2013-05, Vol.84 (5), p.585-594</ispartof><rights>2013 American Academy of Periodontology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3435-8a2e884a21deaf301822297c7b5f29204c8210a5855c5454607fbd2c1cdc32643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3435-8a2e884a21deaf301822297c7b5f29204c8210a5855c5454607fbd2c1cdc32643</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1902%2Fjop.2012.120219$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1902%2Fjop.2012.120219$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27922,27923,45572,45573</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22680300$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cook, Deana Clare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mealey, Brian L.</creatorcontrib><title>Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols</title><title>Journal of periodontology (1970)</title><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><description>Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols.
Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant placement were randomly allocated into two ridge preservation protocol groups. Protocol 1 used a xenograft material consisting of 90% anorganic bovine bone in combination with 10% porcine collagen fibers combined with a resorbable bilayer membrane composed of non‐cross‐linked porcine types I and III collagen. Protocol 2 used a xenograft sponge composed of 70% cross‐linked type I bovine collagen coated with a layer of non‐sintered hydroxyapatite mineral on its surface combined with a resorbable membrane composed of type I porcine collagen cross‐linked by natural ribose glycation. Following 21 weeks of healing, clinical measurements were repeated, and a core biopsy was obtained and prepared for histologic evaluation of percentages of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other (CT/other).
Results: Similar percentages of CT/other were detected between protocols, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.763). A significantly greater percentage of vital bone was detected in specimens in protocol 2 (P <0.001). Protocol 1 presented with a mean of 32.83% ± 14.72% vital bone, 13.44% ± 11.57% residual graft material, and 53.73% ± 6.76% CT/other. Protocol 2 presented with a mean of 47.03% ± 9.09% vital bone, no detectable residual graft material, and 52.97% ± 9.09% CT/other. Clinically, no significant differences in dimensional changes were evident between ridge preservation protocols.
Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinical and histologic differences seen when using these two xenograft protocols for ridge preservation.</description><subject>Absorbable Implants</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Alveolar bone loss</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control</subject><subject>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bone Regeneration</subject><subject>bone resorption</subject><subject>Bone Transplantation - methods</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>dental implants</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Membranes, Artificial</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>tooth extraction</subject><subject>Tooth Extraction - adverse effects</subject><subject>Tooth Socket - surgery</subject><subject>Transplantation, Heterologous - methods</subject><subject>Wound Healing - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0022-3492</issn><issn>1943-3670</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1vEzEQhi0EoqFw5ob2yGXT8dje7B5RSAlVJaqqFdwsx2sHV85OsDcNFX8ep2m5cpoPPfNK8zD2nsOUd4Bnd7SdInCccgTk3Qs24Z0UtWhm8JJNABBrITs8YW9yvisjlwJesxPEpgUBMGF_liGPFGkdbDWnzdakkGmoyFdLZ2IY1tU5xUj7Q3dDNP6sFr_HZOwYCvU9lPk69GtXXSWXXbo3j_vb_IjvqfocvHfJDWP1ww20TsaPBaWRLMX8lr3yJmb37qmestvzxc18WV9--_J1_umytkIKVbcGXdtKg7x3xgvgLSJ2MztbKY8dgrQtcjCqVcoqqWQDM7_q0XLbW4GNFKfs4zF3m-jXzuVRb0K2LkYzONplzYVsVCsQmoKeHVGbKOfkvN6msDHpQXPQB-O6GNcH4_povFx8eArfrTau_8c_Ky6AOgL7EN3D__L0xdXiGsov4i9WCI1n</recordid><startdate>201305</startdate><enddate>201305</enddate><creator>Cook, Deana Clare</creator><creator>Mealey, Brian L.</creator><general>American Academy of Periodontology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201305</creationdate><title>Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols</title><author>Cook, Deana Clare ; Mealey, Brian L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3435-8a2e884a21deaf301822297c7b5f29204c8210a5855c5454607fbd2c1cdc32643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Absorbable Implants</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Alveolar bone loss</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control</topic><topic>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bone Regeneration</topic><topic>bone resorption</topic><topic>Bone Transplantation - methods</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Membranes, Artificial</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>tooth extraction</topic><topic>Tooth Extraction - adverse effects</topic><topic>Tooth Socket - surgery</topic><topic>Transplantation, Heterologous - methods</topic><topic>Wound Healing - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cook, Deana Clare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mealey, Brian L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cook, Deana Clare</au><au>Mealey, Brian L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols</atitle><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><date>2013-05</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>585</spage><epage>594</epage><pages>585-594</pages><issn>0022-3492</issn><eissn>1943-3670</eissn><abstract>Background: The objectives of this study are to compare differences in histologic and clinical healing following tooth extraction and ridge preservation using two different xenograft treatment protocols.
Methods: Forty‐four patients with a non‐molar tooth that required extraction and planned implant placement were randomly allocated into two ridge preservation protocol groups. Protocol 1 used a xenograft material consisting of 90% anorganic bovine bone in combination with 10% porcine collagen fibers combined with a resorbable bilayer membrane composed of non‐cross‐linked porcine types I and III collagen. Protocol 2 used a xenograft sponge composed of 70% cross‐linked type I bovine collagen coated with a layer of non‐sintered hydroxyapatite mineral on its surface combined with a resorbable membrane composed of type I porcine collagen cross‐linked by natural ribose glycation. Following 21 weeks of healing, clinical measurements were repeated, and a core biopsy was obtained and prepared for histologic evaluation of percentages of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other (CT/other).
Results: Similar percentages of CT/other were detected between protocols, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.763). A significantly greater percentage of vital bone was detected in specimens in protocol 2 (P <0.001). Protocol 1 presented with a mean of 32.83% ± 14.72% vital bone, 13.44% ± 11.57% residual graft material, and 53.73% ± 6.76% CT/other. Protocol 2 presented with a mean of 47.03% ± 9.09% vital bone, no detectable residual graft material, and 52.97% ± 9.09% CT/other. Clinically, no significant differences in dimensional changes were evident between ridge preservation protocols.
Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinical and histologic differences seen when using these two xenograft protocols for ridge preservation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Academy of Periodontology</pub><pmid>22680300</pmid><doi>10.1902/jop.2012.120219</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-3492 |
| ispartof | Journal of periodontology (1970), 2013-05, Vol.84 (5), p.585-594 |
| issn | 0022-3492 1943-3670 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1346583206 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Absorbable Implants Adult Aged Alveolar bone loss Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods Animals Bone Regeneration bone resorption Bone Transplantation - methods Cattle Dental Implantation, Endosseous dental implants Dentistry Female Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods Humans Male Membranes, Artificial Middle Aged Statistics, Nonparametric Swine tooth extraction Tooth Extraction - adverse effects Tooth Socket - surgery Transplantation, Heterologous - methods Wound Healing - physiology Young Adult |
| title | Histologic Comparison of Healing Following Tooth Extraction With Ridge Preservation Using Two Different Xenograft Protocols |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T15%3A13%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Histologic%20Comparison%20of%20Healing%20Following%20Tooth%20Extraction%20With%20Ridge%20Preservation%20Using%20Two%20Different%20Xenograft%20Protocols&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20periodontology%20(1970)&rft.au=Cook,%20Deana%20Clare&rft.date=2013-05&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=585&rft.epage=594&rft.pages=585-594&rft.issn=0022-3492&rft.eissn=1943-3670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1902/jop.2012.120219&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1346583206%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1346583206&rft_id=info:pmid/22680300&rfr_iscdi=true |