Search

Background: Several types of bone grafts are used in ridge preservation procedures., Purpose: To compare the healing of allografts and xenografts applied for alveolar ridge preservation., Materials and Methods: Twenty volunteers in need of extraction of a single-rooted tooth prior to implant installation were randomized into two groups. One group received a deproteinized cancellous bovine bone xenograft embedded in a 10% collagen matrix and the other a demineralized freeze-dried cortical bone allograft. A collagen membrane was used to cover the grafts, flaps were sutured. At baseline and 6 months later, clinical measurements including vertical and horizontal bone dimensions were taken. Histomorphometric analysis was performed., Results: Both groups showed shrinkage of bone dimensions. At mesial, center and distal sites, the vertical changes in dimension were -0.6, 0.5, and -0.1 mm for the allograft and -1.1, -0.4, and -0.9 mm for the xenograft. The horizontal changes in dimensions were -1.4 mm for the allograft and -2.6 mm for the xenograft. New bone and residual graft material were 25.5 ± 10.1% and 33.8 ± 9.4% at the allograft and 35.3 ± 16.8% and 22.2 ± 13.4% at the xenograft sites. None of the differences was statistically significant., Conclusion: Both grafting materials are suitable for the preservation of the alveolar ridge., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: To compare the 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of patients rehabilitated with four or six implants placed using guided surgery and immediate function concept., Materials and Methods: Forty patients randomly received four (All-on-4) or six (All-on-6) immediately loaded implants, placed using guided surgery, to support a cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis. Outcome measures were survival rates of implants and prostheses, complications, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and periodontal parameters., Results: No drop-out occurred. Seven implants failed at the 5-year follow-up examination: six in the All-on-6 group (5%) and one in the All-on-4 group (1.25%), with no statistically significant differences (p = .246). No prosthetic failure occurred. Both group experienced some technical and biologic complications with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = .501). All-on-4 treatment concept demonstrated a trend of more complications during the entire follow-up period. A trend of more implant failure was experienced for the All-on-6 treatment concept. Marginal bone loss (MBL) from baseline to the 5-year follow-up was not statistically different between All-on-4 (1.71 ± 0.42 mm) and All-on-6 (1.51 ± 0.36 mm) groups (p = .12). For periodontal parameters, there were no differences between groups (p > .05)., Conclusion: Both approaches may represent a predictable treatment option for the rehabilitation of complete edentulous patients in the medium term. Longer randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)