J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2017 Jun;47(3):165-173. 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.3.165.

Comparative, randomized, double-blind clinical study of alveolar ridge preservation using an extracellular matrix-based dental resorbable membrane in the extraction socket

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. kst72@snu.ac.kr
  • 2ESTeam Paris Sud, INSERM UMR-S 935, Paris-Sud University, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
  • 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. leejongh@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to radiographically and clinically compare the effect of extracellular matrix (ECM) membranes on dimensional alterations following a ridge preservation procedure.
METHODS
One of 2 different ECM membranes was applied during a ridge preservation procedure. A widely used ECM membrane (WEM; Bio-Gide, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland) was applied in the treatment group and a newly developed ECM membrane (NEM; Lyso-Gide, Oscotec Inc., Seongnam, Korea) was applied in the control group. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and alginate impressions were obtained 1 week and 6 months after the ridge preservation procedure. Results were analyzed using the independent t-test and the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences between the ECM membranes in the changes in the dimension, width, and height of the extraction socket or the quantity of bone tissue.
CONCLUSIONS
The NEM showed comparable clinical and radiographic results to the WEM following the ridge preservation procedure.

Keyword

Alveolar bone grafting; Bone regeneration; Cone-beam computed tomography; Membranes; Three-dimensional imaging; Tooth socket

MeSH Terms

Alveolar Bone Grafting
Alveolar Process*
Biocompatible Materials
Bone and Bones
Bone Regeneration
Clinical Study*
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Extracellular Matrix
Gyeonggi-do
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Membranes*
Tooth Socket
Biocompatible Materials

Figure

  • Figure 1 Flow diagram for the phases of the randomized controlled trial. CBCT: cone-beam computed tomography, VAS: visual analog scale.

  • Figure 2 (A) Polyworks superimposition of cast scans. Adjacent teeth were used as reference points. (B) A vector was projected from the designated 3D area. 3D: 3-dimensional.

  • Figure 3 (A) The sagittal image of CBCT from V2. (B) Calculation of height in the V6 image, which was cut similarly to the V2 image. CBCT: cone-beam computed tomography, V2: the day of surgery, V6: 6 months after the ridge preservation procedure.


Cited by  1 articles

A randomized controlled clinical study of periodontal tissue regeneration using an extracellular matrix-based resorbable membrane in combination with a collagenated bovine bone graft in intrabony defects
Sulhee Kim, Hyeyoon Chang, Jin wook Hwang, Sungtae Kim, Ki-Tae Koo, Tae-Il Kim, Yang-Jo Seol, Yong-Moo Lee, Young Ku, Jong-Ho Lee, In-Chul Rhyu
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017;47(6):363-371.    doi: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.6.363.


Reference

1. Amler MH, Johnson PL, Salman I. Histological and histochemical investigation of human alveolar socket healing in undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960; 61:32–44.
Article
2. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J Prosthet Dent. 1967; 17:21–27.
Article
3. Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32:212–218.
Article
4. Cardaropoli G, Araújo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 30:809–818.
5. Van der Weijden F, Dell’Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:1048–1058.
Article
6. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23:313–323.
7. Barone A, Aldini NN, Fini M, Giardino R, Calvo Guirado JL, Covani U. Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. J Periodontol. 2008; 79:1370–1377.
Article
8. Iasella JM, Greenwell H, Miller RL, Hill M, Drisko C, Bohra AA, et al. Ridge preservation with freeze-dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. J Periodontol. 2003; 74:990–999.
Article
9. Vignoletti F, Matesanz P, Rodrigo D, Figuero E, Martin C, Sanz M. Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:Suppl 5. 22–38.
Article
10. Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The influence of Bio-Oss Collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008; 28:123–135.
11. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; CD003607.
Article
12. Hämmerle CH, Araújo MG, Simion M. Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:Suppl 5. 80–82.
Article
13. Thalmair T, Fickl S, Schneider D, Hinze M, Wachtel H. Dimensional alterations of extraction sites after different alveolar ridge preservation techniques - a volumetric study. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40:721–727.
Article
14. Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Klokkevold PR, Weinlaender M, Kenney EB, Dimitrijevic B, et al. Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes. J Periodontol. 1998; 69:1044–1049.
Article
15. Bunyaratavej P, Wang HL. Collagen membranes: a review. J Periodontol. 2001; 72:215–229.
Article
16. Zubery Y, Goldlust A, Alves A, Nir E. Ossification of a novel cross-linked porcine collagen barrier in guided bone regeneration in dogs. J Periodontol. 2007; 78:112–121.
Article
17. Rothamel D, Benner M, Fienitz T, Happe A, Kreppel M, Nickenig HJ, et al. Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices - an experimental study in the rat. Head Face Med. 2014; 10:10.
Article
18. Hwang JW, Kim S, Kim SW, Lee JH. Effect of extracellular matrix membrane on bone formation in a rabbit tibial defect model. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:6715295.
Article
19. Omran M, Min S, Abdelhamid A, Liu Y, Zadeh HH. Alveolar ridge dimensional changes following ridge preservation procedure: part-2 - CBCT 3D analysis in non-human primate model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27:859–866.
Article
20. Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L, Cardaropoli G. Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32:421–430.
21. Jung RE, Philipp A, Annen BM, Signorelli L, Thoma DS, Hämmerle CH, et al. Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40:90–98.
Article
22. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Stappert CF, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour after different socket preservation techniques. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35:906–913.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JPIS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr