Alveolar ridge regeneration of damaged extraction sockets using deproteinized porcine versus bovine bone minerals: A randomized clinical trial

Jung Seok Lee, Jae Kook Cha, Chang Sung Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Backgrounds: Clinical benefits in bone grafting of intact extraction socket have been widely known, but limited evidence is available for the procedure in damaged extraction sockets due to periodontal disease. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge following bone grafting of damaged extraction sockets, and compare the outcomes of using deproteinized bovine (DBBM) versus porcine bone mineral (DPBM) in the damaged sockets. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (n = 50 for each group) with periodontitis-induced damaged extraction socket were included in this randomized, single-blind trial. After removal of tooth and granulation tissue, sites were grafted with either DBBM (DBBM group) or DPBM (DPBM group), and covered with collagen membrane. Linear/volumetric analyses of hard and soft-tissue dimensions were performed on reconstructed/superimposed computed tomography and scanned cast images, taken immediately and 4 months after surgery. Results: The two groups showed comparable hard tissue augmentation with minimal reductions in the grafted volume, as well as in vertical (1.22 ± 2.16 and 1.45 ± 1.92 mm for DPBM and DBBM group, respectively) and horizontal (1.43 ± 3.40 and 1.83 ± 2.85 mm on the central section, respectively) dimensions at 4 months after surgery. However, several cases showed large variations in maintenance of the grafted volume. None of the measured parameters in hard and soft tissue dimensions differed significantly between DBBM and DPBM sites. Conclusions: DBBM and DPBM can comparably augment damaged extraction sockets with minimal postoperative reduction of the grafted volume. However, the large variations in the results should be further evaluated for application in routine dental clinics.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)729-737
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Oct

Fingerprint

Alveolar Process
Minerals
Regeneration
Swine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Bone and Bones
Bone Transplantation
Dental Clinics
Granulation Tissue
Periodontitis
Periodontal Diseases
Tooth
Collagen
Tomography
Maintenance
Membranes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{60f65f4b1a524f61a5e0a3aea90f81d7,
title = "Alveolar ridge regeneration of damaged extraction sockets using deproteinized porcine versus bovine bone minerals: A randomized clinical trial",
abstract = "Backgrounds: Clinical benefits in bone grafting of intact extraction socket have been widely known, but limited evidence is available for the procedure in damaged extraction sockets due to periodontal disease. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge following bone grafting of damaged extraction sockets, and compare the outcomes of using deproteinized bovine (DBBM) versus porcine bone mineral (DPBM) in the damaged sockets. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (n = 50 for each group) with periodontitis-induced damaged extraction socket were included in this randomized, single-blind trial. After removal of tooth and granulation tissue, sites were grafted with either DBBM (DBBM group) or DPBM (DPBM group), and covered with collagen membrane. Linear/volumetric analyses of hard and soft-tissue dimensions were performed on reconstructed/superimposed computed tomography and scanned cast images, taken immediately and 4 months after surgery. Results: The two groups showed comparable hard tissue augmentation with minimal reductions in the grafted volume, as well as in vertical (1.22 ± 2.16 and 1.45 ± 1.92 mm for DPBM and DBBM group, respectively) and horizontal (1.43 ± 3.40 and 1.83 ± 2.85 mm on the central section, respectively) dimensions at 4 months after surgery. However, several cases showed large variations in maintenance of the grafted volume. None of the measured parameters in hard and soft tissue dimensions differed significantly between DBBM and DPBM sites. Conclusions: DBBM and DPBM can comparably augment damaged extraction sockets with minimal postoperative reduction of the grafted volume. However, the large variations in the results should be further evaluated for application in routine dental clinics.",
author = "Lee, {Jung Seok} and Cha, {Jae Kook} and Kim, {Chang Sung}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/cid.12628",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "729--737",
journal = "Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research",
issn = "1523-0899",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alveolar ridge regeneration of damaged extraction sockets using deproteinized porcine versus bovine bone minerals

T2 - A randomized clinical trial

AU - Lee, Jung Seok

AU - Cha, Jae Kook

AU - Kim, Chang Sung

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - Backgrounds: Clinical benefits in bone grafting of intact extraction socket have been widely known, but limited evidence is available for the procedure in damaged extraction sockets due to periodontal disease. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge following bone grafting of damaged extraction sockets, and compare the outcomes of using deproteinized bovine (DBBM) versus porcine bone mineral (DPBM) in the damaged sockets. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (n = 50 for each group) with periodontitis-induced damaged extraction socket were included in this randomized, single-blind trial. After removal of tooth and granulation tissue, sites were grafted with either DBBM (DBBM group) or DPBM (DPBM group), and covered with collagen membrane. Linear/volumetric analyses of hard and soft-tissue dimensions were performed on reconstructed/superimposed computed tomography and scanned cast images, taken immediately and 4 months after surgery. Results: The two groups showed comparable hard tissue augmentation with minimal reductions in the grafted volume, as well as in vertical (1.22 ± 2.16 and 1.45 ± 1.92 mm for DPBM and DBBM group, respectively) and horizontal (1.43 ± 3.40 and 1.83 ± 2.85 mm on the central section, respectively) dimensions at 4 months after surgery. However, several cases showed large variations in maintenance of the grafted volume. None of the measured parameters in hard and soft tissue dimensions differed significantly between DBBM and DPBM sites. Conclusions: DBBM and DPBM can comparably augment damaged extraction sockets with minimal postoperative reduction of the grafted volume. However, the large variations in the results should be further evaluated for application in routine dental clinics.

AB - Backgrounds: Clinical benefits in bone grafting of intact extraction socket have been widely known, but limited evidence is available for the procedure in damaged extraction sockets due to periodontal disease. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge following bone grafting of damaged extraction sockets, and compare the outcomes of using deproteinized bovine (DBBM) versus porcine bone mineral (DPBM) in the damaged sockets. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (n = 50 for each group) with periodontitis-induced damaged extraction socket were included in this randomized, single-blind trial. After removal of tooth and granulation tissue, sites were grafted with either DBBM (DBBM group) or DPBM (DPBM group), and covered with collagen membrane. Linear/volumetric analyses of hard and soft-tissue dimensions were performed on reconstructed/superimposed computed tomography and scanned cast images, taken immediately and 4 months after surgery. Results: The two groups showed comparable hard tissue augmentation with minimal reductions in the grafted volume, as well as in vertical (1.22 ± 2.16 and 1.45 ± 1.92 mm for DPBM and DBBM group, respectively) and horizontal (1.43 ± 3.40 and 1.83 ± 2.85 mm on the central section, respectively) dimensions at 4 months after surgery. However, several cases showed large variations in maintenance of the grafted volume. None of the measured parameters in hard and soft tissue dimensions differed significantly between DBBM and DPBM sites. Conclusions: DBBM and DPBM can comparably augment damaged extraction sockets with minimal postoperative reduction of the grafted volume. However, the large variations in the results should be further evaluated for application in routine dental clinics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051046832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051046832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cid.12628

DO - 10.1111/cid.12628

M3 - Article

C2 - 30051954

AN - SCOPUS:85051046832

VL - 20

SP - 729

EP - 737

JO - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

JF - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

SN - 1523-0899

IS - 5

ER -