Purpose: To compare epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix for sealing postextraction sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone. Materials and methods: A total of 30 patients, who needed a maxillary tooth to be extracted between their premolars and required a delayed, fixed, single implant-supported restoration, had their teeth atraumatically extracted and their sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone.Patients were randomised according to a parallel group design into two arms: socket sealing with epithelial connective tissue graft (group A) vs porcine collagen matrix (group B). Outcome measures were: implant success and survival rate, complications, horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes measured on Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans at three levels localised 1, 3, and 5 mm below the most coronal aspect of the bone crest (levels A, B, and C); and between the palatal and buccal wall peaks (level D); and peri-implant marginal bone level changes measured on periapical radiographs.Results: 15 patients were randomised to group A and 15 to group B. No patients dropped out. No failed implants or complications were reported 1 year after implant placement. Five months after tooth extraction there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes. At level A the difference was 0.13 ± 0.18; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26 mm (P = 0.34), at level B it was 0.08 ± 0.23; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.14 (P = 0.61),at level C it was 0.05 ± 0.25; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.31 mm (P = 0.55) and at level D it was 0.13 ± 0.27;95% CI -0.02 to 0.32 mm (P = 0.67). One year after implant placement there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for peri-implant marginal bone level changes (difference:0.07 ± 0.11 mm; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.16; P = 0.41).Conclusions: When teeth extractions were performed atraumatically and sockets were filled with deproteinised bovine bone, sealing the socket with a porcine collagen matrix or a epithelial connective tissue graft showed similar outcomes. The use of porcine collagen matrix allowed simplification of treatment because no palatal donor site was involved.

Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix.1-year results of a randomised controlled trial / Meloni, S. M.; Tallarico, M.; Lolli, F. M.; Deledda, A.; Pisano, M.; Jovanovic, S. A.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY. - ISSN 1756-2406. - 8:1(2015), pp. 39-48.

Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix.1-year results of a randomised controlled trial

Meloni S. M.
;
Tallarico M.;Lolli F. M.;
2015-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To compare epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix for sealing postextraction sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone. Materials and methods: A total of 30 patients, who needed a maxillary tooth to be extracted between their premolars and required a delayed, fixed, single implant-supported restoration, had their teeth atraumatically extracted and their sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone.Patients were randomised according to a parallel group design into two arms: socket sealing with epithelial connective tissue graft (group A) vs porcine collagen matrix (group B). Outcome measures were: implant success and survival rate, complications, horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes measured on Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans at three levels localised 1, 3, and 5 mm below the most coronal aspect of the bone crest (levels A, B, and C); and between the palatal and buccal wall peaks (level D); and peri-implant marginal bone level changes measured on periapical radiographs.Results: 15 patients were randomised to group A and 15 to group B. No patients dropped out. No failed implants or complications were reported 1 year after implant placement. Five months after tooth extraction there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes. At level A the difference was 0.13 ± 0.18; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26 mm (P = 0.34), at level B it was 0.08 ± 0.23; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.14 (P = 0.61),at level C it was 0.05 ± 0.25; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.31 mm (P = 0.55) and at level D it was 0.13 ± 0.27;95% CI -0.02 to 0.32 mm (P = 0.67). One year after implant placement there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for peri-implant marginal bone level changes (difference:0.07 ± 0.11 mm; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.16; P = 0.41).Conclusions: When teeth extractions were performed atraumatically and sockets were filled with deproteinised bovine bone, sealing the socket with a porcine collagen matrix or a epithelial connective tissue graft showed similar outcomes. The use of porcine collagen matrix allowed simplification of treatment because no palatal donor site was involved.
2015
Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix.1-year results of a randomised controlled trial / Meloni, S. M.; Tallarico, M.; Lolli, F. M.; Deledda, A.; Pisano, M.; Jovanovic, S. A.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY. - ISSN 1756-2406. - 8:1(2015), pp. 39-48.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/224167
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 50
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 50
social impact