A Comparision of Two Types of Decalcified Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft in Treatment of Dehiscence Defects around Implants in Dogs

Abstract

Background: Decalcified freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) may have the potential to enhance bone formation around dental implants. Our aim in this study was the evaluation and comparison of two types of DFDBA in treatment of dehiscence defects around Euroteknika(®) implants in dogs.

Methods: In this prospective clinical trial animal study, all mandibular premolars of three Iranian dogs were extracted. After 3 months of healing, fifteen SLA type Euroteknika(®) dental implants (Natea) with 4.1mm diameter and 10mm length were placed in osteotomy sites with dehiscence defects of 5mm length, 4 mm width, and 3mm depth. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures were performed using Cenobone and collagen membrane for six implants, the other six implants received Dembone and collagen membrane and the final three implants received only collagen membrane. All implants were submerged. After 4 months of healing, implants were uncovered and stability (Implant Stability Quotient) of all implants was measured. Then, block biopsies of each implant site were taken and processed for ground sectioning and histomorphometric analysis. The data was analyzed by ANOVA and Pearson tests. P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results: All implants osseointegrated after 4 months. The mean values of bone to implant contact for histomorphometric measurements of Cenobone, Denobone, and control groups were 77.36 ± 9.96%, 78.91 ± 11.9% and 71.56 ± 5.61% respectively, with no significant differences among the various treatment groups. The correlation of Implant Stability Quotient and histomorphometric techniques was 0.692.

Conclusion: In treating of dehiscence defects with GBR technique in this study, adding DFDBA did not significantly enhance the percentages of bone-to-implant contact measurements; and Implant Stability Quotient Resonance Frequency Analysis appeared to be a precise technique.

Keywords: Allograft; Collagen type IV; Dehiscence defects; Dental implantation; Osseointegration.

Figure 1

Comparison of average BIC of lamellar bone, woven bone, Cenobone and Dembone groups’ defects and control group (lamellar bone P = 0.298 and woven bone P = 0.380).

Figure 2

Histological view under light Microscope showes contact of lamellar new bone with implant in Cenobone group magnification X40 – massons's trichrom staning.

Figure 3

Histologic view under light Microscope showes contact of lamellar new bone with implant in Dembone group (magnification X40 – massons's trichromstaning).