Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vi
- PDF / 17,191,899 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 76 Downloads / 239 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation Riccardo Di Raimondo 1 & Javier Sanz-Esporrín 1,2 & Ignacio Sanz-Martin 1 & Rafael Plá 1 & Fernando Luengo 1 & Fabio Vignoletti 1,2 & Javier Nuñez 1 & Mariano Sanz 1,2 Received: 1 April 2020 / Accepted: 18 August 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Objective To assess the contour and volumetric changes of hard and soft tissues after guided bone regeneration (GBR) using two types of barrier membranes together with a xenogeneic bone substitute in dehiscence-type defects around dental implants. Material and methods In 8 Beagle dogs, after tooth extraction, two-wall chronified bone defects were developed. Then, implants were placed with a buccal dehiscence defect that was treated with GBR using randomly: (i) deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) covered by a synthetic polylactic membrane (test group), (ii) DBBM plus a porcine natural collagen membrane (positive control) and (iii) defect only covered by the synthetic membrane (negative control group). Outcomes were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. Micro-CT was used to evaluate the hard tissue volumetric changes and STL files from digitized cast models were used to measure the soft tissues contour linear changes. Results Test and positive control groups were superior in terms of volume gain and contour changes when compared with the negative control. Soft tissue changes showed at 4 weeks statistically significant superiority for test and positive control groups compared with negative control. After 12 weeks, the results were superior for test and positive control groups but not statistically significant, although, with a lesser magnitude, the negative control group exhibited gains in both, soft and hard tissues. Conclusions Both types of membranes (collagen and synthetic) attained similar outcomes, in terms of hard tissue volume gain and soft tissue contours when used in combination with DBBM Clinical relevance Synthetic membranes were a valid alternative to the “gold standard” natural collagen membrane for treating dehiscence-type defects around dental implants when used with a xenogeneic bone substitute scaffold Keywords Guided bone regeneration . Synthetic barrier membrane . Collagen membrane . Prophilometric and volumetric changes . Dental implant . Animal model MeSH terms Pre-clinical in vivo investigation . Alveolar bone loss . Dental implants . Guided bone regeneration . Barrier membranes
Introduction Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Mariano Sanz [email protected] 1
Postgraduate Periodontology Clinic, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
2
ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Periimplant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Tooth loss is usu
Data Loading...
