Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial
Objectives To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). Material and methods Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, we...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2022-07, Vol.33 (7), p.681-699 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 699 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 681 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | MacBeth, Neil D. Donos, Nikolaos Mardas, Nikos |
| description | Objectives
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
Material and methods
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded.
Results
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm2 ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm2 ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm2 ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm2 ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm2 ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm2 ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
Conclusion
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13933 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2658226565</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2683872935</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3183-92031ed5b099694e15ef31cb0caa1ff7b2b22084e98aa31849298d16d5399ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9rFDEYh4Modq0e_AIl4KWCs00m8yc5Lou2woIgvQ-Z5J1tajbZvplp6a1nT37GfpJmnepBMIcE3jzvww9-hLznbMnzOTMel1woIV6QBW8YK1jN-EuyYIrVRcsbfkTepHTNGGuUVK_JkagrKau2XZCfK38L0Wuk6OwW6B4hAd7q0cVA79x4RbeTs2BpHwNQhC0EwPk3Ik3R_ICRJtCejmCugruZYElXFHWwcecS2E80ubD18Pjwq_cuWGpiGDF6n50mD5w57KLT_i15NWif4N3ze0wuv3y-XF8Um2_nX9erTWEEl6JQJRMcbN0zpRpVAa9hENz0zGjNh6Hty74smaxASa3zRqVKJS1vbC2UMiCOyems3WPMadPY5ZwGvNcB4pS6sqllma-mzuiHf9DrOGHI4TIlhWxLJQ7Ux5kyGFNCGLo9up3G-46z7tBPl_vpfveT2ZNn49TvwP4l_xSSgbMZuHMe7v9v6tab77PyCVoznEM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2683872935</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>MacBeth, Neil D. ; Donos, Nikolaos ; Mardas, Nikos</creator><creatorcontrib>MacBeth, Neil D. ; Donos, Nikolaos ; Mardas, Nikos</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
Material and methods
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded.
Results
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm2 ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm2 ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm2 ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm2 ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm2 ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm2 ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
Conclusion
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13933</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35488477</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Alveolar bone ; alveolar bone dimensions ; alveolar ridge preservation ; Bone growth ; Bone healing ; bone healing complications and visual analogue pain scores ; Clinical trials ; Complications ; Computed tomography ; cone beam computerised tomography ; Dehiscence ; Dimensional changes ; guided bone regeneration ; Maxilla ; Mucosa ; optical scanning ; randomised controlled trial ; Regeneration ; Regeneration (physiology) ; socket seal ; Teeth ; Tissue engineering ; Tooth extractions</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2022-07, Vol.33 (7), p.681-699</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3183-92031ed5b099694e15ef31cb0caa1ff7b2b22084e98aa31849298d16d5399ce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3183-92031ed5b099694e15ef31cb0caa1ff7b2b22084e98aa31849298d16d5399ce3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4117-9073 ; 0000-0002-6841-458X ; 0000-0001-7535-7985</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.13933$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13933$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488477$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MacBeth, Neil D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donos, Nikolaos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mardas, Nikos</creatorcontrib><title>Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Objectives
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
Material and methods
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded.
Results
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm2 ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm2 ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm2 ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm2 ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm2 ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm2 ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
Conclusion
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.</description><subject>Alveolar bone</subject><subject>alveolar bone dimensions</subject><subject>alveolar ridge preservation</subject><subject>Bone growth</subject><subject>Bone healing</subject><subject>bone healing complications and visual analogue pain scores</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>cone beam computerised tomography</subject><subject>Dehiscence</subject><subject>Dimensional changes</subject><subject>guided bone regeneration</subject><subject>Maxilla</subject><subject>Mucosa</subject><subject>optical scanning</subject><subject>randomised controlled trial</subject><subject>Regeneration</subject><subject>Regeneration (physiology)</subject><subject>socket seal</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Tissue engineering</subject><subject>Tooth extractions</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9rFDEYh4Modq0e_AIl4KWCs00m8yc5Lou2woIgvQ-Z5J1tajbZvplp6a1nT37GfpJmnepBMIcE3jzvww9-hLznbMnzOTMel1woIV6QBW8YK1jN-EuyYIrVRcsbfkTepHTNGGuUVK_JkagrKau2XZCfK38L0Wuk6OwW6B4hAd7q0cVA79x4RbeTs2BpHwNQhC0EwPk3Ik3R_ICRJtCejmCugruZYElXFHWwcecS2E80ubD18Pjwq_cuWGpiGDF6n50mD5w57KLT_i15NWif4N3ze0wuv3y-XF8Um2_nX9erTWEEl6JQJRMcbN0zpRpVAa9hENz0zGjNh6Hty74smaxASa3zRqVKJS1vbC2UMiCOyems3WPMadPY5ZwGvNcB4pS6sqllma-mzuiHf9DrOGHI4TIlhWxLJQ7Ux5kyGFNCGLo9up3G-46z7tBPl_vpfveT2ZNn49TvwP4l_xSSgbMZuHMe7v9v6tab77PyCVoznEM</recordid><startdate>202207</startdate><enddate>202207</enddate><creator>MacBeth, Neil D.</creator><creator>Donos, Nikolaos</creator><creator>Mardas, Nikos</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</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/0000-0002-4117-9073</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6841-458X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7535-7985</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202207</creationdate><title>Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial</title><author>MacBeth, Neil D. ; Donos, Nikolaos ; Mardas, Nikos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3183-92031ed5b099694e15ef31cb0caa1ff7b2b22084e98aa31849298d16d5399ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Alveolar bone</topic><topic>alveolar bone dimensions</topic><topic>alveolar ridge preservation</topic><topic>Bone growth</topic><topic>Bone healing</topic><topic>bone healing complications and visual analogue pain scores</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>cone beam computerised tomography</topic><topic>Dehiscence</topic><topic>Dimensional changes</topic><topic>guided bone regeneration</topic><topic>Maxilla</topic><topic>Mucosa</topic><topic>optical scanning</topic><topic>randomised controlled trial</topic><topic>Regeneration</topic><topic>Regeneration (physiology)</topic><topic>socket seal</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Tissue engineering</topic><topic>Tooth extractions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MacBeth, Neil D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donos, Nikolaos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mardas, Nikos</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</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>MacBeth, Neil D.</au><au>Donos, Nikolaos</au><au>Mardas, Nikos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2022-07</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>681</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>681-699</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
Material and methods
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded.
Results
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm2 ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm2 ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm2 ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm2 ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm2 ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm2 ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
Conclusion
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>35488477</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13933</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4117-9073</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6841-458X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7535-7985</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2022-07, Vol.33 (7), p.681-699 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2658226565 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Alveolar bone alveolar bone dimensions alveolar ridge preservation Bone growth Bone healing bone healing complications and visual analogue pain scores Clinical trials Complications Computed tomography cone beam computerised tomography Dehiscence Dimensional changes guided bone regeneration Maxilla Mucosa optical scanning randomised controlled trial Regeneration Regeneration (physiology) socket seal Teeth Tissue engineering Tooth extractions |
| title | Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T10%3A44%3A09IST&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=Alveolar%20ridge%20preservation%20with%20guided%20bone%20regeneration%20or%20socket%20seal%20technique.%20A%20randomised,%20single%E2%80%90blind%20controlled%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=MacBeth,%20Neil%20D.&rft.date=2022-07&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=681&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=681-699&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13933&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2683872935%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=2683872935&rft_id=info:pmid/35488477&rfr_iscdi=true |