Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To evaluate ridge dimensional changes following alveolar ridge augmentation in two-wall-damaged extraction sockets without a barrier membrane, using two types of collagenated bone substitutes i. cross-linked (CL-CB) and ii. non-cross-linked (NCL-CB).</p> Materials and methods <p>Two-wall defects were created in mandibles of seven beagle dogs and treated in three groups: (i) no grafting (control), (ii) sockets filled with NCL-CB, and (iii) sockets filled with CL-CB. No barrier membrane was used. One animal was sacrificed after 1&#xa0;week of healing for tissue assessments (n = 1), and the other six were sacrificed after 8&#xa0;weeks of healing for microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) and histological analyses (<i>n</i> = 6).</p> Results <p>Compared to unextracted sites, radiographic analysis revealed that the alveolar ridge dimension decreased to 83.29 ± 24.96% in group NCL-CB, 73.46 ± 16.59% in group CL-CB and 55.41 ± 12.95% in non-grafted sites (intergroup <i>p</i> = 0.062). Histological analysis showed that compared to baseline values the ridge area decreased to 68.75 ± 14.20% in the non-grafted group, 79.88 ± 20.05% in the NCL-CB group and 76.10 ± 21.09% in the CL-CB group with no significant differences between the groups (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Qualitative histological analyses revealed significantly less mineralized tissue in both test groups, amounting to 25.28 ± 10.40% in group NCL-CB, 29.86 ± 12.04% in group CL-CB, and 67.15 ± 14.35% in non-grafted sites (intergroup <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>The efficacy of alveolar ridge augmentation using either cross-linked or non-cross-linked collagenated bone substitutes alone might be limited in severely damaged sockets such as those with two-wall defects.</p> Clinical relevance <p>In situations where sockets are extensively damaged, like those with two-wall defects, relying solely on soft-type bone block substitutes without a barrier membrane may not provide sufficient bone regeneration. This study highlights the importance of considering additional regenerative strategies, such as the use of barrier membranes, to enhance clinical outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy of collagenated bone substitutes for bone regeneration in two-wall-damaged extraction sockets without barrier membranes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月22日

查看全文
  • Seungho Jeong,
  • Franz J. Strauss,
  • Hae Jee Shin,
  • Jin-Young Park,
  • Jae-Kook Cha,
  • Jung-Seok Lee

摘要

Objectives

To evaluate ridge dimensional changes following alveolar ridge augmentation in two-wall-damaged extraction sockets without a barrier membrane, using two types of collagenated bone substitutes i. cross-linked (CL-CB) and ii. non-cross-linked (NCL-CB).

Materials and methods

Two-wall defects were created in mandibles of seven beagle dogs and treated in three groups: (i) no grafting (control), (ii) sockets filled with NCL-CB, and (iii) sockets filled with CL-CB. No barrier membrane was used. One animal was sacrificed after 1 week of healing for tissue assessments (n = 1), and the other six were sacrificed after 8 weeks of healing for microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) and histological analyses (n = 6).

Results

Compared to unextracted sites, radiographic analysis revealed that the alveolar ridge dimension decreased to 83.29 ± 24.96% in group NCL-CB, 73.46 ± 16.59% in group CL-CB and 55.41 ± 12.95% in non-grafted sites (intergroup p = 0.062). Histological analysis showed that compared to baseline values the ridge area decreased to 68.75 ± 14.20% in the non-grafted group, 79.88 ± 20.05% in the NCL-CB group and 76.10 ± 21.09% in the CL-CB group with no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). Qualitative histological analyses revealed significantly less mineralized tissue in both test groups, amounting to 25.28 ± 10.40% in group NCL-CB, 29.86 ± 12.04% in group CL-CB, and 67.15 ± 14.35% in non-grafted sites (intergroup p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The efficacy of alveolar ridge augmentation using either cross-linked or non-cross-linked collagenated bone substitutes alone might be limited in severely damaged sockets such as those with two-wall defects.

Clinical relevance

In situations where sockets are extensively damaged, like those with two-wall defects, relying solely on soft-type bone block substitutes without a barrier membrane may not provide sufficient bone regeneration. This study highlights the importance of considering additional regenerative strategies, such as the use of barrier membranes, to enhance clinical outcomes.