Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors Affecting Primary Stability on Sites of Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using Porcine-derived Bone Minerals

  • Lee, Su-Yeon (Department of Periodontology, Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Young (Research Institute of Veterans Health Service Medical Center) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Woon (Department of Periodontology, Veterans Health Service Medical Center)
  • Received : 2021.01.05
  • Accepted : 2021.04.01
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is widely conducted for implant placement. However, experimental results using deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) have been scarce. This retrospective study evaluated factors affecting the primary stability of implants in an area where ARP was performed using DPBM. Materials and Methods: Thirty-eight patients were divided into two groups based on the primary stability, with torque value of 30 Ncm as borderline. To determine the factors that affect the primary stability of implants, we collected data from patients' medical records including age, sex, reentry time, socket location, remaining bone wall at the time of extraction, and type of collagen membrane, as well as from radiographs and histomorphometric analysis. Result: The results showed statistically significant difference for the remaining extraction socket wall (P=0.014), residual graft (P=0.029), and fibrovascular tissue (P=0.02) between the two groups. There was an insignificant tendency toward the time of reentry surgery (P=0.052) and location (P=0.077). All implants placed in sites using DPBM functioned well up to 3 years. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, extraction socket wall, residual graft, and fibrovascular tissue can affect the primary stability at the time of implant placement on grafted sites using DPBM and collagen membranes. In addition, reentry time and locations can be considered. In future studies, comparative experiments in quantified models will be required to supporting the findings.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a Veterans Health Service Medical Center Research Grant, Republic of Korea (Grant number: VHSMC 19024).

References

  1. Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36: 1048-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x
  2. Horvath A, Mardas N, Mezzomo LA, Needleman IG, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 341-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0758-5
  3. Vignoletti F, Matesanz P, Rodrigo D, Figuero E, Martin C, Sanz M. Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 5: 22-38.
  4. MacBeth N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Donos N, Mardas N. Hard and soft tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 982-1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12911
  5. Darby I, Chen ST, Buser D. Ridge preservation techniques for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24 Suppl: 260-71.
  6. Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 950-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514541127
  7. Barone A, Aldini NN, Fini M, Giardino R, Calvo Guirado JL, Covani U. Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. J Periodontol. 2008; 79: 1370-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070628
  8. Festa VM, Addabbo F, Laino L, Femiano F, Rullo R. Porcine-derived xenograft combined with a soft cortical membrane versus extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical study in humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15: 707-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00398.x
  9. Pelegrine AA, da Costa CE, Correa ME, Marques JF Jr. Clinical and histomorphometric evaluation of extraction sockets treated with an autologous bone marrow graft. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 535-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01891.x
  10. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Socket grafting with the use of autologous bone: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01937.x
  11. Becker W, Urist M, Becker BE, Jackson W, Parry DA, Bartold M, Vincenzzi G, De Georges D, Niederwanger M. Clinical and histologic observations of sites implanted with intraoral autologous bone grafts or allografts. 15 human case reports. J Periodontol. 1996; 67: 1025-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1996.67.10.1025
  12. Iasella JM, Greenwell H, Miller RL, Hill M, Drisko C, Bohra AA, Scheetz JP. Ridge preservation with freeze-dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. J Periodontol. 2003; 74: 990-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.7.990
  13. Beck TM, Mealey BL. Histologic analysis of healing after tooth extraction with ridge preservation using mineralized human bone allograft. J Periodontol. 2010; 81: 1765-72. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100286
  14. Smukler H, Landi L, Setayesh R. Histomorphometric evaluation of extraction sockets and deficient alveolar ridges treated with allograft and barrier membrane: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 407-16.
  15. Cook DC, Mealey BL. Histologic comparison of healing following tooth extraction with ridge preservation using two different xenograft protocols. J Periodontol. 2013; 84: 585-94. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120219
  16. Lindhe J, Cecchinato D, Donati M, Tomasi C, Liljenberg B. Ridge preservation with the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 786-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12170
  17. Artzi Z, Tal H, Dayan D. Porous bovine bone mineral in healing of human extraction sockets. Part 1: histomorphometric evaluations at 9 months. J Periodontol. 2000; 71: 1015-23. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.6.1015
  18. Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L, Cardaropoli G. Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32: 421-30.
  19. Serino G, Biancu S, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Ridge preservation following tooth extraction using a polylactide and polyglycolide sponge as space filler: a clinical and histological study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14: 651-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00970.x
  20. Serino G, Rao W, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Polylactide and polyglycolide sponge used in human extraction sockets: bone formation following 3 months after its application. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01311.x
  21. Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 688-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01918.x
  22. Mardas N, D'Aiuto F, Mezzomo L, Arzoumanidi M, Donos N. Radiographic alveolar bone changes following ridge preservation with two different biomaterials. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 416-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02154.x
  23. Troiano G, Zhurakivska K, Lo Muzio L, Laino L, Cicciu M, Lo Russo L. Combination of bone graft and resorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. J Periodontol. 2018; 89: 46-57.
  24. Becker W, Hujoel P, Becker BE. Effect of barrier membranes and autologous bone grafts on ridge width preservation around implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 4: 143-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00165.x
  25. Cammack GV 2nd, Nevins M, Clem DS 3rd, Hatch JP, Mellonig JT. Histologic evaluation of mineralized and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft for ridge and sinus augmentations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25: 231-7.
  26. Cheon GB, Kang KL, Yoo MK, Yu JA, Lee DW. Alveolar ridge preservation using allografts and dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes with open membrane technique in unhealthy extraction socket. J Oral Implantol. 2017; 43: 267-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00012
  27. Lim HC, Kim JH, Choi SH, Yu JA, Lee DW. Conflicts between histologic and clinical/radiologic findings in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for managing maxillary sinusitis following sinus augmentation: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 1247-53. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7502
  28. Rao P, Gill A. Primary stability: the password of implant integration. J Dent Implants. 2012; 2: 103-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-6781.102223
  29. Turkyilmaz I, Sennerby L, McGlumphy EA, Tozum TF. Biomechanical aspects of primary implant stability: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11: 113-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00097.x
  30. Leblebicioglu B, Salas M, Ort Y, Johnson A, Yildiz VO, Kim DG, Agarwal S, Tatakis DN. Determinants of alveolar ridge preservation differ by anatomic location. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40: 387-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12065
  31. De Risi V, Clementini M, Vittorini G, Mannocci A, De Sanctis M. Alveolar ridge preservation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of histological and histomorphometrical data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 50-68.
  32. Lee DW, Kim KT, Joo YS, Yoo MK, Yu JA, Ryu JJ. The role of two different collagen membranes for dehiscence defect around implants in humans. J Oral Implantol. 2015; 41: 445-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00214
  33. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol. 2009; 80: 1388-92. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090115
  34. Willenbacher M, Al-Nawas B, Berres M, Kammerer PW, Schiegnitz E. The effects of alveolar ridge preservation: a meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 1248-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12364
  35. Hammerle CH, Araujo MG, Simion M; Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 5: 80-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02370.x
  36. Lee JS, Cha JK, Kim CS. Alveolar ridge regeneration of damaged extraction sockets using deproteinized porcine versus bovine bone minerals: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20: 729-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12628
  37. Mardas N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, MacBeth N, Petrie A, Donos N. Does ridge preservation following tooth extraction improve implant treatment outcomes: a systematic review: group 4: therapeutic concepts & methods. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11: 180-201.
  38. Lee KJ, Cha JK, Ignacio SM, Sanz M, Jung UW. A retrospective study evaluating the survival and radiographic outcome of implants with low primary stability. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(S19): 272. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.228_13509