Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using a Novel Species-Specific Collagen-Enriched Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: Histological Evaluation of a Prospective Case Series

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2024 Jul 27

PMID 39061747

Authors

Andreas van Orten

Werner Goetz

Hakan Bilhan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In recent years, the significance of maintaining the alveolar ridge following tooth extractions has markedly increased. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a commonly utilized technique and a variety of bone substitute materials and biologics are applied in different combinations. For this purpose, a histological evaluation and the clinical necessity of subsequent guided bone regeneration (GBR) in delayed implantations were investigated in a prospective case series after ARP with a novel deproteinized bovine bone material (95%) in combination with a species-specific collagen (5%) (C-DBBM). Notably, block-form bone substitutes without porcine collagen are limited, and moreover, the availability of histological data on this material remains limited. Ten patients, each scheduled for tooth extraction and desiring future implantation, were included in this study. Following tooth extraction, ARP was performed using a block form of C-DBBM in conjunction with a double-folded bovine cross-linked collagen membrane (xCM). This membrane was openly exposed to the oral cavity and secured using a crisscross suture. After a healing period ranging from 130 to 319 days, guided trephine drilling was performed for implant insertion utilizing static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS). Cores harvested from the area previously treated with ARP were histologically processed and examined. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) was not necessary for any of the implantations. Histological examination revealed the development of a lattice of cancellous bone trabeculae through appositional membranous osteogenesis at various stages surrounding C-DBBM granules as well as larger spongy or compact ossicles with minimal remnants. The clinical follow-up period ranged from 2.5 to 4.5 years, during which no biological or technical complications occurred. Within the limitations of this prospective case series, it can be concluded that ARP using this novel C-DBBM in combination with a bovine xCM could be a treatment option to avoid the need for subsequent GBR in delayed implantations with the opportunity of a bovine species-specific biomaterial chain.

References

Canullo L, Fabbro M, Khijmatgar S, Panda S, Ravida A, Tommasato G . Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 26(1):141-158. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04248-1. View

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

Wang R, Lang N . Ridge preservation after tooth extraction. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 Suppl 6:147-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02560.x. View

Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U . Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(11):1231-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02535.x. View

Suarez-Lopez Del Amo F, Monje A . Efficacy of biologics for alveolar ridge preservation/reconstruction and implant site development: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review. J Periodontol. 2022; 93(12):1827-1847. PMC: 10092438. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0069. View

Zhang A, Liu Y, Liu X, Cai X, Sun L, Li T . Could the socket shield technique be better than conventional immediate implantation? A meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 26(2):1173-1182. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04266-z. 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

Elian N, Cho S, Froum S, Smith R, Tarnow D . A simplified socket classification and repair technique. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2007; 19(2):99-104. View

Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson B, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J . Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21(1):37-42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x. View

10.

Sculean A, Stavropoulos A, Bosshardt D . Self-regenerative capacity of intra-oral bone defects. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46 Suppl 21:70-81. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13075. View

11.

Penarrocha M, Uribe R, Balaguer J . Immediate implants after extraction. A review of the current situation. Med Oral. 2004; 9(3):234-42. View

12.

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

13.

Offner D, Fernandez De Grado G, Meisels I, Pijnenburg L, Fioretti F, Benkirane-Jessel N . Bone Grafts, Bone Substitutes and Regenerative Medicine Acceptance for the Management of Bone Defects Among French Population: Issues about Ethics, Religion or Fear?. Cell Med. 2020; 11:2155179019857661. PMC: 6587382. DOI: 10.1177/2155179019857661. View

14.

Solakoglu O, Gotz W, Heydecke G, Schwarzenbach H . Histological and immunohistochemical comparison of two different allogeneic bone grafting materials for alveolar ridge reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial in humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21(5):1002-1016. PMC: 6899623. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12824. View

15.

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

16.

Hammerle C, Tarnow D . The etiology of hard- and soft-tissue deficiencies at dental implants: A narrative review. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 Suppl 1:S291-S303. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.16-0810. View

17.

Chang C, Lin I, Mei C, Tang P, Hong H . A Socket Seal Technique With the Use of Autologous Dental Roots for Socket Seal: A Case Series. J Oral Implantol. 2023; 49(5):473-484. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00279. View

18.

Chappuis V, Engel O, Shahim K, Reyes M, Katsaros C, Buser D . Soft Tissue Alterations in Esthetic Postextraction Sites: A 3-Dimensional Analysis. J Dent Res. 2015; 94(9 Suppl):187S-93S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515592869. View

19.

van Orten A, Goetz W, Bilhan H . Tooth-Derived Granules in Combination with Platelet-Rich Fibrin ("Sticky Tooth") in Socket Preservation: A Histological Evaluation. Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(2). PMC: 8871177. DOI: 10.3390/dj10020029. View

20.

Agrawal K, Rao J, Anwar M, Singh K, Himanshu D . Flapless vs flapped implant insertion in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes subjected to delayed loading: 1-year follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10(4):403-413. View