Particulate Versus Cross-Linked Collagenated Bone Substitutes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:0
|
作者
Jung, Ji-Young [1 ]
Park, Seung-Hyun [1 ]
Kim, Kwan-Jung [2 ]
Ko, Kyung-A [1 ]
Lee, Dong-Woon [3 ]
Lee, Jung-Seok [1 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Dent, Res Inst Periodontal Regenerat, Dept Periodontol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Dent Hosp, Vet Hlth Serv Med Ctr, Dept Periodontol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Wonkwang Univ, Dept Periodontol, Coll Dent, Iksan, South Korea
关键词
dental implant; guided bone regeneration; horizontal ridge augmentation; radiographic analysis; randomized controlled clinical trial; BIO-OSS(R) COLLAGEN; RIDGE PRESERVATION; VOLUME STABILITY; WOUND CLOSURE; GBR MATERIALS; AUGMENTATION; EXTRACTION; 6-MONTH; GRAFTS; SITES;
D O I
10.1111/clr.14433
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: To compare the dimensional outcomes of horizontal augmentation with the retentive-flap technique using particulate and cross-linked collagenated bone substitutes. Materials and Methods: This two-centre, two-arm randomized clinical trial investigated 69 subjects: 34 in the particulate group and 35 in the collagenated group. Patients were randomly assigned to receive single implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) using either particulate deproteinized porcine bone material (DPBM) or cross-linked collagenated DPBM. Quantitative evaluations were conducted for horizontal width, augmented area, and augmented volume in both hard and soft tissue dimensions. Results: Immediately after surgery, the collagenated group exhibited higher hard tissue dimensions in terms of horizontal width and augmented area. After 4 months, the difference between the two groups decreased to a non-significant level, mainly attributable to the high shrinkage rate of the collagenated group (32.32 [20.79] %) compared to the particulate group (19.90 [14.33] %). No significant difference was observed regarding the soft tissue contour analyses between the two groups after 4 months. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between cross-linked collagenated and particulated DPBMs regarding the dimensional outcomes of horizontal augmentation with the retentive-flap technique. The high resorption rate of the collagenated bone substitute negates its initial superiority in both radiographic and soft tissue dimensions (no. KCT0005348).
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial
    Mendoza-Azpur, Gerardo
    de la Fuente, Andres
    Chavez, Elizabeth
    Valdivia, Erick
    Khouly, Ismael
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (04) : 521 - 530
  • [2] Guided bone regeneration with tripolyphosphate cross-linked asymmetric chitosan membrane
    Ma, Shiqing
    Chen, Zhen
    Qiao, Feng
    Sun, Yingchun
    Yang, Xiaoping
    Deng, Xuliang
    Cen, Lian
    Cai, Qing
    Wu, Mingyao
    Zhang, Xu
    Gao, Ping
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2014, 42 (12) : 1603 - 1612
  • [3] Ossification and Bone Regeneration in a Canine GBR Model, Part 2: Glycated Cross-Linked Collagenated Alloplastic Hydroxyapatite Scaffold vs Non- Cross- Linked Collagenated Xenographic Bone Hydroxyapatite
    Pesce, Paolo
    Zubery, Yuval
    Goldlust, Arie
    Bayer, Thomas
    Abundo, Roberto
    Canullo, Luigi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2023, 38 (05) : 923 - 932
  • [4] Bioceramics for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Wang, Yulan
    Fu, Gang
    Zhang, Jian
    Xu, Yan
    Shen, Ming
    Yi, Zhe
    Lan, Jing
    Li, Qiang
    Zhao, Yangsheng
    Wu, Runfa
    Zhang, Yufeng
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2025, 27 (01)
  • [5] Hard tissue changes after guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects comparing block versus particulate bone substitutes: 6-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Benic, Goran, I
    Eisner, Barbara M.
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Basler, Tobias
    Schneider, David
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2019, 30 (10) : 1016 - 1026
  • [6] Membranes and bone substitutes in guided bone regeneration
    Hämmerle, CHF
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON PERIODONTOLOGY: IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 1999, : 468 - 499
  • [7] Ossification of a novel cross-linked porcine collagen barrier in guided bone regeneration in dogs
    Zubery, Yuval
    Goldlust, Arie
    Alves, Antoine
    Nir, Eran
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2007, 78 (01) : 112 - 121
  • [8] Evaluation of cross-linked chitosan microparticles for bone regeneration
    Bhat, Archana
    Dreifke, Michael B.
    Kandimalla, Yugandhar
    Gomez, Carlos
    Ebraheim, Nabil A.
    Jayasuriya, A. Champa
    JOURNAL OF TISSUE ENGINEERING AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, 2010, 4 (07) : 532 - 542
  • [9] Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects with soft-type block versus particulate bone substitutes: Six-month results of hard-tissue changes
    Benic, Goran, I
    Bienz, Stefan P.
    Song, Young Woo
    Cha, Jae-Kook
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    Jung, Ui-Won
    Jung, Ronald E.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2022, 49 (05) : 480 - 495
  • [10] Bone Substitutes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration Technique Review
    Popescu, Eugenia
    Forna, Doriana Agop
    Earar, Kamel
    Forna, Norina Consuela
    MATERIALE PLASTICE, 2017, 54 (02) : 390 - 392