Radiographic Comparison of Atelocollagen Versus Deproteinized Bovine Bone Minerals Covered with a Collagen Membrane in Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Retrospective Study

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Nov 22

PMID 37990178

Authors

Sha You

Fan Yu

Qihang Fan

Ting Xia

Liang Liang

Qi Yan

Hao Zeng

Bin Shi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Atelocollagen (AC) is a low-immunogenic collagen derivative with longer degradation time, which can be a suitable material for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). However, there are few human studies on AC using for ARP. This research aims to radiographically evaluate the efficacy of AC in comparison to deproteinized bovine bone minerals covered with a collagen membrane (DBBM/CM) in ARP.

Methods: Medical records in the Implantology Department of the Hospital of Stomatology of Wuhan University were screened for patients who received flapless ARP using either AC or DBBM/CM. A total of 58 patients were included in this retrospective study. 28 patients were treated with AC, while 30 patients were used DBBM/CM. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken before extraction and after 6 months of healing. To assess the dimensional change of the extraction sockets, the scanning data were output and transferred to the digital software to measure horizontal bone width change, vertical bone height change and bone volume change in region of interest. To evaluate the bone quality of healed sockets, the bone density of virtual implants was evaluated.

Results: The horizontal bone width changes at all five different levels showed no significant difference between the two groups. The largest horizontal bone width decrement in both groups occurred at the crest of ridge, which decreased 3.71 ± 1.67 mm in AC group and 3.53 ± 1.51 mm in DBBM/CM group (p = 0.68). At the central buccal aspect, the ridge height reduced 0.10 ± 1.30 mm in AC group, while increased 0.77 ± 2.43 mm in DBBM/CM group (p = 0.10). The vertical bone height differences between two groups showed no statistical significance. The percentages of volume absorption in AC group and DBBM/CM group were 12.37%±6.09% and 14.54%±11.21%, respectively. No significant difference in volume absorption was found (p = 0.36). The average bone density around virtual implants in AC group (649.41 ± 184.71 HU) was significantly lower than that in DBBM/CM group (985.23 ± 207.85 HU) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: ARP with AC had a similar effect on limiting the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge, when radiographically compared with DBBM/CM.

Citing Articles

Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone in Association with Calcium Sulphate for Alveolar Socket Preservation.

Signoriello A, Zangani A, Faccioni P, Messina E, Pardo A, Corrocher G J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797088 PMC: 11722185. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010003.

Changes of the Alveolar Bone Ridge Using Bone Mineral Grafts and Collagen Membranes after Tooth Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lopez-Valverde N, Macedo de Sousa B, Blanco Rueda J Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(6).

PMID: 38927801 PMC: 11200736. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11060565.

References

Tan W, Wong T, Wong M, Lang N . A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 5:1-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x. View

Halperin-Sternfeld M, Machtei E, Horwitz J . Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for dimensional linear measurements in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(3):593-9. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3409. View

Cooperman L, Michaeli D . The immunogenicity of injectable collagen. I. A 1-year prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984; 10(4):638-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80271-6. View

Clementini M, Agostinelli A, Castelluzzo W, Cugnata F, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M . The effect of immediate implant placement on alveolar ridge preservation compared to spontaneous healing after tooth extraction: Radiographic results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46(7):776-786. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13125. View

Sano A, Maeda M, Nagahara S, Ochiya T, Honma K, Itoh H . Atelocollagen for protein and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003; 55(12):1651-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.08.005. View

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. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12639. View

Van der Weijden F, DellAcqua F, Slot D . Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(12):1048-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x. View

Furthmayr H, Timpl R . Immunochemistry of collagens and procollagens. Int Rev Connect Tissue Res. 1976; 7:61-99. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-363707-9.50008-3. View

Jung R, Sapata V, Hammerle C, Wu H, Hu X, Lin Y . Combined use of xenogeneic bone substitute material covered with a native bilayer collagen membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(5):522-529. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13149. View

10.

Fischer K, Muhlemann S, Jung R, Friedmann A, Fickl S . Dimensional Evaluation of Different Ridge Preservation Techniques with a Bovine Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018; 38(4):549-556. DOI: 10.11607/prd.3636. View

11.

Wang H, Boyapati L . "PASS" principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(1):8-17. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f. View

12.

Araujo M, Lindhe J . Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(2):212-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. View

13.

Milani S, Dal Pozzo L, Rasperini G, Sforza C, Dellavia C . Deproteinized bovine bone remodeling pattern in alveolar socket: a clinical immunohistological evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 27(3):295-302. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12535. View

14.

Kim D, Lim H, Hong J, Shin S, Chung J, Herr Y . Validity of Collagen Plugs for Ridge Preservation in a Canine Model. Implant Dent. 2017; 26(6):892-898. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000696. View

15.

Avila-Ortiz G, Rodriguez J, Rudek I, Benavides E, Rios H, Wang H . Effectiveness of three different alveolar ridge preservation techniques: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014; 34(4):509-21. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1838. View

16.

Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F . Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46 Suppl 21:195-223. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13057. View

17.

Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F . Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT Scan and Gray Scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014; 8(2):107-10. PMC: 4120902. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2014.019. View

18.

Iocca O, Farcomeni A, Pardinas Lopez S, Talib H . Alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a Bayesian Network meta-analysis of grafting materials efficacy on prevention of bone height and width reduction. J Clin Periodontol. 2016; 44(1):104-114. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12633. View

19.

Nart J, Barallat L, Jimenez D, Mestres J, Gomez A, Carrasco M . Radiographic and histological evaluation of deproteinized bovine bone mineral vs. deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen in ridge preservation. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(7):840-848. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12889. View

20.

Al Qabbani A, Al Kawas S, Enezei H, Razak N, Al Bayatti S, Samsudin A . Biomechanical and radiological assessment of immediate implants for alveolar ridge preservation. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2018; 15(6):420-429. PMC: 6243806. View