Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of wound closure on volume stability with the application of different GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic study

  • Naenni, Nadja (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Berner, Tanja (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Waller, Tobias (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Huesler, Juerg (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Hammerle, Christoph Hans Franz (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich) ;
  • Thoma, Daniel Stefan (Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich)
  • Received : 2018.08.21
  • Accepted : 2019.01.30
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the influence of using different combinations of guided bone regeneration (GBR) materials on volume changes after wound closure at peri-implant dehiscence defects. Methods: In 5 pig mandibles, standardized bone defects were created and implants were centrally placed. The defects were augmented using different combinations of GBR materials: xenogeneic granulate and collagen membrane (group 1, n=10), xenogeneic granulate and alloplastic membrane (group 2, n=10), alloplastic granulates and alloplastic membrane (group 3, n=10). The horizontal thickness was assessed using cone-beam computed tomography before and after suturing. Measurements were performed at the implant shoulder (HT0) and at 1 mm (HT1) and 2mm (HT2) below. The data were statistically analysed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to evaluate within-group differences. Bonferroni correction was applied when calculating statistical significance between the groups. Results: The mean horizontal thickness before suturing was $2.55{\pm}0.53mm$ (group 1), $1.94{\pm}0.56mm$ (group 2), and $2.49{\pm}0.73mm$ (group 3). Post-suturing, the values were $1.47{\pm}0.31mm$ (group 1), $1.77{\pm}0.27mm$ (group 2), and $2.00{\pm}0.48mm$ (group 3). All groups demonstrated a loss of horizontal dimension. Intragroup changes exhibited significant differences in group 1 (P<0.001) and group 3 (P<0.01). Intergroup comparisons revealed statistically significant differences of the relative changes between groups 1 and 2 (P=0.033) and groups 1 and 3 (P=0.015). Conclusions: Volume change after wound closure was minimized by using an alloplastic membrane. The stability of the augmented horizontal thickness was most ensured by using this type of membrane irrespective of the bone substitute material used for membrane support.

Keywords

References

  1. Hammerle CH, Karring T. Guided bone regeneration at oral implant sites. Periodontol 2000 1998;17:151-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00132.x
  2. Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1109-16.
  3. Benic GI, Hammerle CH. Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:13-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12039
  4. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 Suppl:237-59.
  5. Donos N, Mardas N, Chadha V. Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:173-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01269.x
  6. Karring T, Nyman S, Gottlow J, Laurell L. Development of the biological concept of guided tissue regeneration--animal and human studies. Periodontol 2000 1993;1:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1993.tb00204.x
  7. Nyman S, Lindhe J, Karring T, Rylander H. New attachment following surgical treatment of human periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:290-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1982.tb02095.x
  8. Gottlow J, Nyman S, Karring T, Lindhe J. New attachment formation as the result of controlled tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 1984;11:494-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1984.tb00901.x
  9. Dahlin C, Lekholm U, Becker W, Becker B, Higuchi K, Callens A, et al. Treatment of fenestration and dehiscence bone defects around oral implants using the guided tissue regeneration technique: a prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:312-8.
  10. Scantlebury TV. 1982-1992: a decade of technology development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol 1993;64:1129-37. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1993.64.11s.1129
  11. Jung RE, Fenner N, Hammerle CH, Zitzmann NU. Long-term outcome of implants placed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes after 12-14 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1065-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02522.x
  12. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:49-70.
  13. Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Scharer P. Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:844-52.
  14. Moses O, Pitaru S, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE. Healing of dehiscence-type defects in implants placed together with different barrier membranes: a comparative clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:210-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01100.x
  15. Naenni N, Schneider D, Jung RE, Husler J, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS. Randomized clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: clinical and histological outcomes at 6 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1309-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12977
  16. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J. Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:369-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01108.x
  17. Lundgren AK, Sennerby L, Lundgren D, Taylor A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Bone augmentation at titanium implants using autologous bone grafts and a bioresorbable barrier. An experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:82-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080202.x
  18. von Arx T, Broggini N, Jensen SS, Bornstein MM, Schenk RK, Buser D. Membrane durability and tissue response of different bioresorbable barrier membranes: a histologic study in the rabbit calvarium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:843-53.
  19. Strietzel FP, Khongkhunthian P, Khattiya R, Patchanee P, Reichart PA. Healing pattern of bone defects covered by different membrane types--a histologic study in the porcine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006;78:35-46.
  20. Mir-Mari J, Wui H, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. Influence of blinded wound closure on the volume stability of different GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:258-65.
  21. Mir-Mari J, Benic GI, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Hammerle CH, Jung RE. Influence of wound closure on the volume stability of particulate and non-particulate GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Part II. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:631-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12845
  22. Friedmann A, Strietzel FP, Maretzki B, Pitaru S, Bernimoulin JP. Histological assessment of augmented jaw bone utilizing a new collagen barrier membrane compared to a standard barrier membrane to protect a granular bone substitute material. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:587-94. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130603.x

Cited by

  1. The Influence of Different Guided Bone Regeneration Procedures on the Contour of Bone Graft after Wound Closure: A Retrospective Cohort Study vol.14, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14030583
  2. Implants sites with concomitant bone regeneration using a resorbable or non‐resorbable membrane result in stable marginal bone levels and similar profilometric outcomes over 5 years vol.32, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13764