Scholarlink

Background <p>Tooth extraction often leads to remodeling and shrinkage of the alveolar crest, particularly on the buccal side. This study aimed to assess the impact of grafting procedures on augmenting a thin buccal alveolar bone following tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.</p> Methods <p>The third mandibular premolar was bilaterally extracted in dogs, and implants were immediately placed into the distal sockets. At the test sites, the buccal bone wall was augmented with a xenograft, while both test and control sites were covered with a collagen membrane. After three months, biopsies were collected for histological analysis.</p> Results <p>Marginal bone loss averaged 3.0 ± 1.3&#xa0;mm at control sites and 1.9 ± 0.8&#xa0;mm at test sites (<i>p</i> = 0.084). At the test site, new bone formation extended from the buccal bone surface through the graft material, incorporating the granules and occasionally reaching the outermost areas, especially in the coronal regions. However, most of the outer regions of the biomaterial lacked newly formed bone.</p> Conclusion <p>The study indicates that neither the use of a xenograft covered by a collagen membrane nor the application of a collagen membrane alone effectively preserved the buccal bone wall after tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Overbuilding techniques for thin buccal bone in immediate implant placement: an experimental study in dogs

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月11日

查看全文
  • Ermenegildo Federico De Rossi,
  • Takahisa Iida,
  • David Carpita,
  • Mauro Iorio,
  • Fernando M. Muñoz Guzon,
  • Giovanna Iezzi,
  • Daniele Botticelli

摘要

Background

Tooth extraction often leads to remodeling and shrinkage of the alveolar crest, particularly on the buccal side. This study aimed to assess the impact of grafting procedures on augmenting a thin buccal alveolar bone following tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.

Methods

The third mandibular premolar was bilaterally extracted in dogs, and implants were immediately placed into the distal sockets. At the test sites, the buccal bone wall was augmented with a xenograft, while both test and control sites were covered with a collagen membrane. After three months, biopsies were collected for histological analysis.

Results

Marginal bone loss averaged 3.0 ± 1.3 mm at control sites and 1.9 ± 0.8 mm at test sites (p = 0.084). At the test site, new bone formation extended from the buccal bone surface through the graft material, incorporating the granules and occasionally reaching the outermost areas, especially in the coronal regions. However, most of the outer regions of the biomaterial lacked newly formed bone.

Conclusion

The study indicates that neither the use of a xenograft covered by a collagen membrane nor the application of a collagen membrane alone effectively preserved the buccal bone wall after tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.