异种成型胶原骨引导种植体周围骨缺损再生的临床研究

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2023.04.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To conduct prospective evaluation of bone volume changes and stability differences between regeneration of peri-implant bone defects guided by soft block-shaped deproteinized inorganic bovine bone containing 10% collagen(DBBM-C) and granular deproteinized inorganic bovine bone(DBBM). Methods Implant surgery was performed on the proposed implant sites(18), which were classified asⅠ-0 by the relationship between the alveolar bone defect and the expected implant placement site. “V” shaped bone dehiscence 5-8 mm occurred on the buccal side after implant placement, and guided bone regeneration(GBR) was done simultaneously, with 10 DBBM-C + collagen membrane(CM) and 8 DBBM+CM. Immediately after surgery, six months after surgery and twelve months after surgery, CBCT was performed and analyzed to measure the horizontal bone thickness(d), 45° bone thickness(d₄₅)and bone height(h) of the labial and buccal side of the implant at cervical level. Results Values of d, d₄₅ and h immediately after surgery were different between the two groups, and the differences were not statistically significant; values of d and d₄₅ in the DBBM-C group were higher than those in the DBBM group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P<0.05), and the differences were statistically significant. Differences between groups in h values were not statistically significant. Values of d and d₄₅ changes from the immediate postoperative period to 6 months after surgery were lower in the DBBM-C group, and the differences were statistically significant. The difference in changes of h values between the two groups was not statistically significant; the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant in d, d₄₅ and h change values from 6 months to 12 months after surgery. Conclusion In this study, DBBM-C+CM showed less bone volume change than DBBM+CM in guiding the regeneration of peri-implant bone defects and had better stability.

Key words: bone replacement material, guided bone regeneration (GBR), bone volume change, stability difference

CLC Number:

R782.1

LI Jiafu,LYU Hong,ZHOU Jing,LIU Qing,PU Yiming,BU Honghu,LIU Qinghui,QU Binbin. Clinical study on allogeneic molded collagen bone to guide the regeneration of peri-implant bone defects[J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(4): 322-326.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

References 21

[1]	Fernandez de Grado G, Keller L, Idoux-Gillet Y, et al. Bone substitutes: A review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management[J]. J Tissue Eng, 2018, 9: 2041731418776819.
[2]	Fillingham Y, Jacobs J. Bone grafts and their substitutes[J]. Bone Joint J, 2016, 98-B(1 Suppl A):6-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B.36350 pmid: 26733632
[3]	Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, et al. Guided bone regeneration: Materials and biological mechanisms revisited[J]. Eur J Oral Sci, 2017, 125(5):315-337. doi: 10.1111/eos.12364 pmid: 28833567
[4]	Urban IA, Monje A. Guidedbone regeneration in alveolar bone reconstruction[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2019, 31(2):331-338. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.01.003
[5]	Aprile P, Letourneur D, Simon-Yarza T. Membranes forguided bone regeneration: A road from bench to bedside[J]. Adv Healthc Mater, 2020, 9(19):e2000707.
[6]	Mendoza-Azpur G, de la Fuente A, Chavez E, et al. Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2019, 21(4):521-530.
[7]	Briguglio F, Falcomatà D, Marconcini S, et al. The use of titanium mesh in guided bone regeneration: A systematic review[J]. Int J Dent, 2019, 2019: 9065423.
[8]	张富贵, 宿玉成, 邱立新, 等. 牙槽骨缺损骨增量手术方案的专家共识[J]. 口腔疾病防治, 2022, 30(4):229-236. doi: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2022.04.001
[9]	Waller T, Herzog M, Thoma DS, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic results after treatment or no treatment of small buccal bone dehiscences at posterior dental implants: A randomized, controlled clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(6):517-525. doi: 10.1111/clr.v31.6
[10]	Monje A, Chappuis V, Monje F, et al. The critical peri-implant buccal bone wall thickness revisited: An experimental study in the beagle dog[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019, 34(6):1328-1336. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7657
[11]	Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, et al. The peri-implant phenotype[J]. J Periodontol, 2020, 91(3):283-288. doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0566 pmid: 32027021
[12]	Grischke J, Karch A, Wenzlaff A, et al. Keratinized mucosa width is associated with severity of peri-implant mucositis. A cross-sectional study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(5):457-465.
[13]	Jung EH, Jeong SN, Lee JH. Augmentation stability and early wound healing outcomes of guided bone regeneration in peri-implant dehiscence defects with L- and I-shaped soft block bone substitutes: A clinical and radiographic study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(11):1308-1317. doi: 10.1111/clr.v32.11
[14]	Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Linkevicius R, et al. The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2020, 22(4):497-506. doi: 10.1111/cid.2020.v22.4
[15]	Chochlidakis KM, Geminiani A, Papaspyridakos P, et al. Buccal bone thickness around single dental implants in the maxillary esthetic zone[J]. Quintessence Int, 2017, 48(4):295-308. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a37154 pmid: 27834422
[16]	Jiang X, Zhang Y, Di P, et al. Hard tissue volume stability of guided bone regeneration during the healing stage in the anterior maxilla: A clinical and radiographic study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2018, 20(1):68-75. doi: 10.1111/cid.2018.20.issue-1
[17]	Addis A, Canciani E, Campagnol M, et al. A new anorganic equine bone substitute for oral surgery: Structural characterization and regenerative potential[J]. Materials(Basel), 2022, 15(3):1031.
[18]	Benic GI, Eisner BM, Jung RE, et al. Hard tissue changes after guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects comparing block versus particulate bone substitutes: 6-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(10):1016-1026. doi: 10.1111/clr.v30.10
[19]	Jeong HJ, Gwak SJ, Seo KD, et al. Fabrication of three-dimensional composite scaffold for simultaneous alveolar bone regeneration in dental implant installation[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2020, 21(5):1863. doi: 10.3390/ijms21051863
[20]	Lee JT, Cha JK, Kim S, et al. Lateral onlay grafting using different combinations of soft-type synthetic block grafts and resorbable collagen membranes: An experimental in vivo study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(4):303-314. doi: 10.1111/clr.v31.4
[21]	Benic GI, Bienz SP, Song YW, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects with soft-type block versus particulate bone substitutes: Six-month results of hard-tissue changes[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2022, 49(5):480-495. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.v49.5

组别	术后即刻	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后6个月-术后即刻	术后12个月-术后6个月
DBBM-C组	2.66±1.00	2.22±0.91	1.97±0.80	-0.43±0.23	-0.27±0.14
DBBM组	2.49±0.69	1.32±0.50	1.13±0.46	-1.17±0.72	-0.19±0.08
P	0.691	0.021	0.018	0.003	0.149

组别	术后即刻	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后6个月-术后即刻	术后12个月-术后6个月
DBBM-C组	2.13±0.87	1.79±0.78	1.54±0.71	-0.34±0.13	-0.25±0.14
DBBM组	2.04±0.62	1.10±0.33	0.92±0.27	-0.94±0.39	-0.17±0.10
P	0.804	0.033	0.033	0.003	0.129

组别	术后即刻	术后6个月	术后1年	术后6个月-术后即刻	术后12个月-术后6个月
DBBM-C组	2.11±0.84	1.61±0.81	1.33±0.58	-0.51±0.25	-0.28±0.30
DBBM组	2.22±0.69	1.48±0.66	1.22±0.56	-0.74±0.57	-0.26±0.17
P	0.771	0.894	0.869	0.314	0.625

Clinical study on allogeneic molded collagen bone to guide the regeneration of peri-implant bone defects

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 21

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments