Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지

The effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets

치근단 병소를 갖는 발치와에 즉시 임플란트 식립 시 비흡수성 차폐막이 치조골의 흡수에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

  • Shin, Seung-Yun (Department of Periodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yang, Seung-Min (Department of Periodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kye, Seung-Beom (Department of Periodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 신승윤 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 치주과) ;
  • 양승민 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 치주과) ;
  • 계승범 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 치주과)
  • Published : 2009.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Many researches showed loss of alveolar bone in fresh extraction socket and even in case of immediate implant placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Materials and methods: Immediate implants were placed into artificially induced periapical lesion of mandibular premolars after complete debridement using buccal bone defect made by a 6mm trephine bur in 4 mongrel dogs. Before flap repositioning, a non-resorbable barrier membrane was placed on the buccal defect in the experimental group. No membrane was placed in the control group. In 12 weeks after placement, the dogs were sacrificed and undecalcified histologic specimens were prepared. The vertical distance from the smooth-rough surface interface(SRI) to gingiva, 1st bone contact and bone crest were measured in buccal and lingual side. The horizontal thicknesses of gingiva and bone at 0, 1, 2 and 3mm below SRI were measured. Results: The buccal bone was resorbed more than lingual bone in both groups and there was statistical significance(p<0.05). The distances from SRI to 1st bone contact were $2.45{\pm}2.35\;mm$ in experimental group and $4.49{\pm}3.10\;mm$ in control group. In all vertical level, lingual bone was thicker than buccal bone(p<0.05). Conclusion: Buccal bone was reduced more than lingual bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Placement of non-resorbable barrier membrane reduced the buccal bone resorption. However there was no statistical significance.

Keywords

References

  1. Cardaropoli G, Araujo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:809-818 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00366.x
  2. Carlsson GE, Thilander H, Hedegard B. Histologic changes in the upper alveolar process after extractions with or without insertion of an immediate full denture. Acta Odontol Scand 1967;25:21-43 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356709072521
  3. Bahat 0, Deeb C, Golden T, Komarnyckij O. Preservation of ridges utilizing hydroxyapatite. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1987;7:34-41
  4. Park J, Kwon Y, Park J et al. The effect of human demineralized freeze-dried xenograft on vertical bone formation in beagle dogs. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2008;38:75-82
  5. Seibert JS, Salama H. Alveolar ridge preservation and reconstruction. Periodontol 2000 1996; 11 :69-84 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1996.tb00185.x
  6. Paolantonio M, Dolci M, Scarano A et al. Immediate implantation in fresh extraction sockets. A controlled clinical and histological study in man. J Periodontol 2001;72: 1560-1571
  7. Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom lL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:645-652 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00726.x
  8. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31 :820-828 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x
  9. Chang SW, Shin SY, Hong JR et al. Immediate implant placement into infected and noninfected extraction sockets: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:197-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.06.003
  10. Nevins M, Camelo M, De Paoli S et al. A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots. lnt J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:19-29
  11. Fickl S, Zuhr 0, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler MB. Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an experimental study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19: 1111-1118 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01575.x
  12. Antoun H, Sitbon JM, Martinez H, Missika P. A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of bone augmentation: onlay graft alone or associated with a membrane. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:632-639 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120612.x
  13. Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Polansky RA, lakse N, Wegscheider W A. Evaluation of implants placed with barrier membranes. A restrospective follow-up study up to five years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:274-280 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130306.x