Alveolar ridge preservation using autogenous whole-tooth versus demineralized dentin grafts: A randomized controlled clinical trial
- PMID: 33565656
- DOI: 10.1111/clr.13722
Alveolar ridge preservation using autogenous whole-tooth versus demineralized dentin grafts: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the radiographic changes and histologic healing following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using autogenous whole tooth (AWTG), test group, versus autogenous demineralized dentin graft (ADDG), control group.
Material and methods: Twenty non-molar teeth indicated for extraction were randomized into two groups (n = 10/group). Extracted teeth were prepared into AWTG or ADDG (0.6N HCl; 30 min), inserted into extraction sockets and covered by collagen membranes. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans at baseline and six months were compared to assess ridge-dimensional changes. At six months, bone biopsies of engrafted sites were harvested and analyzed histomorphometrically.
Results: All sites healed uneventfully. Reduction was 0.85 ± 0.38 mm and 1.02 ± 0.45 mm in ridge width, 0.61 ± 0.20 mm and 0.72 ± 0.27 mm in buccal and 0.66 ± 0.31 mm and 0.56 ± 0.24 mm in lingual ridge height for the AWTG and ADDG group, respectively (p > .05). Histologically, no inflammatory reactions were noticeable and all samples showed new bone formation. Qualitatively, graft-bone amalgamations were more pronounced in ADDG samples. Histomorphometrically, new bone, graft remnants and soft tissue occupied 37.55% ± 8.94%, 17.05% ± 5.58% and 45.4% ± 4.06% of the areas in the AWTG group and 48.4% ± 11.56%, 11.45% ± 4.13% and 40.15% ± 7.73% in the ADDG group of the examined areas, respectively (p > .05).
Conclusions: AWTG and ADDG are similarly effective in ARP. Yet, histologically ADDG seems to demonstrate better graft remodeling, integration and osteoinductive properties.
Keywords: alveolar ridge preservation; autogenous; extraction; randomized controlled clinical trial; tooth-bone graft.
© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Araujo, M. G., & Lindhe, J. (2005). Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 32(2), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x
-
- Avila-Ortiz, G., Chambrone, L., & Vignoletti, F. (2019). Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 46(Suppl. 21), 195-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13057
-
- Bashutski, J. D., & Wang, H. L. (2007). Common implant esthetic complications. Implant Dentistry, 16(4), 340-348. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318159ca05
-
- Bassir, S. H., Alhareky, M., Wangsrimongkol, B., Jia, Y., & Karimbux, N. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of hard tissue outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 33(5), 979-994. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6399
-
- Binderman, I., Hallel, G., Nardi, C., Yaffe, A., & Sapoznikov, L. (2014). A novel procedure to process extracted teeth for immediate grafting of autogenous dentin. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Science, 2(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-032x.1000154
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
