Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up
Objectives To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed. Material and Methods From March 2018 to July 2020,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2021-08, Vol.32 (8), p.905-915 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 915 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 905 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Santos, Alexandre Botelho, João Machado, Vanessa Borrecho, Gonçalo Proença, Luís Mendes, José João Mascarenhas, Paulo Alcoforado, Gil |
| description | Objectives
To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed.
Material and Methods
From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading.
Results
Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13765 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2526308035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2526308035</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3305-eda04a754b78c51653000a3dd59f1999aac9571b26999ebbcd2f9ce1479236e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc2O0zAQgCMEYsvCgTewxAWEumvHdRJzq8LfSkWsCkjcIseZdL1y7GI7W8qJR-CteA-ehGmz4oCExBzGY883P57JsseMnjGUc23DGeNlIe5kM1ZQOqeCsrvZjEoq5iUr2En2IMZrSmkhK3k_O-FcVjnP6Sz7uRyT34DzYyTvjIOgrPkGHXkJLhlHbiBE9HxGYBNUnwhqN1qIBJ1r022AXAaIEG5UMt6R3gcMtWqPKS6GrVUuTQ7EL31Mv77_gK8pKH18_GASxBdkSdbKdX44FtbepeCtPZjWOKOVJSkY1DuTrohyhFVkQOgqYjVr_Q5zjtuH2b1e2QiPbs_T7NPrVx_rt_PV-zcX9XI115zjMKBTdKFKsWjLSgtWCI5DUbzrhOyZlFIpLUXJ2rzAC7St7vJeamCLUua8AM5Ps6dT3m3wX0aIqRlM1GDxp4AzbHKRF5xWlAtEn_yFXvsxOOwOKSFlKVCQejZROvgYA_TNNphBhX3DaHPYboPbbY7bRbaa2B20vo_agNPwhz-st8jzUlZoUVabafS1H13C0Of_H4r0-S1tLOz_3VFTr9ZTa78Bv5XK9A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2559975555</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up</title><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Santos, Alexandre ; Botelho, João ; Machado, Vanessa ; Borrecho, Gonçalo ; Proença, Luís ; Mendes, José João ; Mascarenhas, Paulo ; Alcoforado, Gil</creator><creatorcontrib>Santos, Alexandre ; Botelho, João ; Machado, Vanessa ; Borrecho, Gonçalo ; Proença, Luís ; Mendes, José João ; Mascarenhas, Paulo ; Alcoforado, Gil</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed.
Material and Methods
From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading.
Results
Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) (p < .001), and the proportion of residual graft was significantly lower (12.2% in MDM and 22.1% in xenograft) (p < .001). No significant differences were found as far as clinical, radiographic and patient‐related outcomes.
Conclusions
Implants placed in sites preserved with MDM had similar primary stability in comparison to xenograft granules. MDM showed a significantly higher quantity of newly formed bone and lower amount of residual graft in histomorphometry results and equal clinical and patient‐related outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13765</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33982320</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Analgesics ; Bone grafts ; Bone histomorphometry ; Bone loss ; bone regeneration ; bone substitutes ; clinical research ; clinical trials ; Dental implants ; Dentin ; Dentistry ; Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine ; Engineering ; Engineering, Biomedical ; Granular materials ; guided tissue regeneration ; histo‐pathology ; host mechanisms ; Life Sciences & Biomedicine ; Mechanical loading ; Mineralization ; Mucositis ; Pain ; Patients ; Prostheses ; Science & Technology ; Stability ; Technology ; Transplants & implants ; Xenografts ; Xenotransplantation</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2021-08, Vol.32 (8), p.905-915</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>33</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000662279800001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3305-eda04a754b78c51653000a3dd59f1999aac9571b26999ebbcd2f9ce1479236e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3305-eda04a754b78c51653000a3dd59f1999aac9571b26999ebbcd2f9ce1479236e33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1019-8263 ; 0000-0002-5837-8327 ; 0000-0002-1545-2267 ; 0000-0003-2503-260X ; 0000-0003-0167-4077</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13765$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13765$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,39263,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Santos, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botelho, João</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machado, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borrecho, Gonçalo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proença, Luís</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, José João</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascarenhas, Paulo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alcoforado, Gil</creatorcontrib><title>Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>CLIN ORAL IMPLAN RES</addtitle><description>Objectives
To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed.
Material and Methods
From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading.
Results
Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) (p < .001), and the proportion of residual graft was significantly lower (12.2% in MDM and 22.1% in xenograft) (p < .001). No significant differences were found as far as clinical, radiographic and patient‐related outcomes.
Conclusions
Implants placed in sites preserved with MDM had similar primary stability in comparison to xenograft granules. MDM showed a significantly higher quantity of newly formed bone and lower amount of residual graft in histomorphometry results and equal clinical and patient‐related outcomes.</description><subject>Analgesics</subject><subject>Bone grafts</subject><subject>Bone histomorphometry</subject><subject>Bone loss</subject><subject>bone regeneration</subject><subject>bone substitutes</subject><subject>clinical research</subject><subject>clinical trials</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>Dentin</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering, Biomedical</subject><subject>Granular materials</subject><subject>guided tissue regeneration</subject><subject>histo‐pathology</subject><subject>host mechanisms</subject><subject>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</subject><subject>Mechanical loading</subject><subject>Mineralization</subject><subject>Mucositis</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Science & Technology</subject><subject>Stability</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Xenografts</subject><subject>Xenotransplantation</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>HGBXW</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc2O0zAQgCMEYsvCgTewxAWEumvHdRJzq8LfSkWsCkjcIseZdL1y7GI7W8qJR-CteA-ehGmz4oCExBzGY883P57JsseMnjGUc23DGeNlIe5kM1ZQOqeCsrvZjEoq5iUr2En2IMZrSmkhK3k_O-FcVjnP6Sz7uRyT34DzYyTvjIOgrPkGHXkJLhlHbiBE9HxGYBNUnwhqN1qIBJ1r022AXAaIEG5UMt6R3gcMtWqPKS6GrVUuTQ7EL31Mv77_gK8pKH18_GASxBdkSdbKdX44FtbepeCtPZjWOKOVJSkY1DuTrohyhFVkQOgqYjVr_Q5zjtuH2b1e2QiPbs_T7NPrVx_rt_PV-zcX9XI115zjMKBTdKFKsWjLSgtWCI5DUbzrhOyZlFIpLUXJ2rzAC7St7vJeamCLUua8AM5Ps6dT3m3wX0aIqRlM1GDxp4AzbHKRF5xWlAtEn_yFXvsxOOwOKSFlKVCQejZROvgYA_TNNphBhX3DaHPYboPbbY7bRbaa2B20vo_agNPwhz-st8jzUlZoUVabafS1H13C0Of_H4r0-S1tLOz_3VFTr9ZTa78Bv5XK9A</recordid><startdate>202108</startdate><enddate>202108</enddate><creator>Santos, Alexandre</creator><creator>Botelho, João</creator><creator>Machado, Vanessa</creator><creator>Borrecho, Gonçalo</creator><creator>Proença, Luís</creator><creator>Mendes, José João</creator><creator>Mascarenhas, Paulo</creator><creator>Alcoforado, Gil</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>HGBXW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1019-8263</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-8327</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1545-2267</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2503-260X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0167-4077</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202108</creationdate><title>Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up</title><author>Santos, Alexandre ; Botelho, João ; Machado, Vanessa ; Borrecho, Gonçalo ; Proença, Luís ; Mendes, José João ; Mascarenhas, Paulo ; Alcoforado, Gil</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3305-eda04a754b78c51653000a3dd59f1999aac9571b26999ebbcd2f9ce1479236e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analgesics</topic><topic>Bone grafts</topic><topic>Bone histomorphometry</topic><topic>Bone loss</topic><topic>bone regeneration</topic><topic>bone substitutes</topic><topic>clinical research</topic><topic>clinical trials</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>Dentin</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering, Biomedical</topic><topic>Granular materials</topic><topic>guided tissue regeneration</topic><topic>histo‐pathology</topic><topic>host mechanisms</topic><topic>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</topic><topic>Mechanical loading</topic><topic>Mineralization</topic><topic>Mucositis</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Science & Technology</topic><topic>Stability</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Xenografts</topic><topic>Xenotransplantation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Santos, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botelho, João</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machado, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borrecho, Gonçalo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proença, Luís</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, José João</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascarenhas, Paulo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alcoforado, Gil</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Santos, Alexandre</au><au>Botelho, João</au><au>Machado, Vanessa</au><au>Borrecho, Gonçalo</au><au>Proença, Luís</au><au>Mendes, José João</au><au>Mascarenhas, Paulo</au><au>Alcoforado, Gil</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><stitle>CLIN ORAL IMPLAN RES</stitle><date>2021-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>905</spage><epage>915</epage><pages>905-915</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed.
Material and Methods
From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading.
Results
Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) (p < .001), and the proportion of residual graft was significantly lower (12.2% in MDM and 22.1% in xenograft) (p < .001). No significant differences were found as far as clinical, radiographic and patient‐related outcomes.
Conclusions
Implants placed in sites preserved with MDM had similar primary stability in comparison to xenograft granules. MDM showed a significantly higher quantity of newly formed bone and lower amount of residual graft in histomorphometry results and equal clinical and patient‐related outcomes.</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>33982320</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13765</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1019-8263</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-8327</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1545-2267</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2503-260X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0167-4077</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2021-08, Vol.32 (8), p.905-915 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2526308035 |
| source | Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Analgesics Bone grafts Bone histomorphometry Bone loss bone regeneration bone substitutes clinical research clinical trials Dental implants Dentin Dentistry Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine Engineering Engineering, Biomedical Granular materials guided tissue regeneration histo‐pathology host mechanisms Life Sciences & Biomedicine Mechanical loading Mineralization Mucositis Pain Patients Prostheses Science & Technology Stability Technology Transplants & implants Xenografts Xenotransplantation |
| title | Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T08%3A46%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Autogenous%20Mineralized%20Dentin%20versus%20Xenograft%20granules%20in%20Ridge%20Preservation%20for%20Delayed%20Implantation%20in%20Post%E2%80%90extraction%20Sites:%20A%20Randomized%20controlled%20clinical%20trial%20with%20an%2018%20months%20follow%E2%80%90up&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Santos,%20Alexandre&rft.date=2021-08&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=905&rft.epage=915&rft.pages=905-915&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13765&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_webof%3E2526308035%3C/proquest_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2559975555&rft_id=info:pmid/33982320&rfr_iscdi=true |