We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 1     9. Mar. 2015
Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 1  (09.03.2015)

Page 39-48, PubMed:25738178


Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix. 1-year results of a randomised controlled trial
Meloni, Silvio Mario / Tallarico, Marco / Lolli, Francesco Maria / Deledda, Alessandro / Pisano, Milena / Jovanovic, Sascha A.
Purpose: To compare epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix for sealing postextraction sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone.
Materials and methods: A total of 30 patients, who needed a maxillary tooth to be extracted between their premolars and required a delayed, fixed, single implant-supported restoration, had their teeth atraumatically extracted and their sockets grafted with deproteinised bovine bone. Patients were randomised according to a parallel group design into two arms: socket sealing with epithelial connective tissue graft (group A) vs porcine collagen matrix (group B). Outcome measures were: implant success and survival rate, complications, horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes measured on Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans at three levels localised 1, 3, and 5 mm below the most coronal aspect of the bone crest (levels A, B, and C); and between the palatal and buccal wall peaks (level D); and peri-implant marginal bone level changes measured on periapical radiographs.
Results: 15 patients were randomised to group A and 15 to group B. No patients dropped out. No failed implants or complications were reported 1 year after implant placement. Five months after tooth extraction there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both horizontal and vertical alveolar bone dimensional changes. At level A the difference was 0.13 ± 0.18; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26 mm (P = 0.34), at level B it was 0.08 ± 0.23; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.14 (P = 0.61), at level C it was 0.05 ± 0.25; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.31 mm (P = 0.55) and at level D it was 0.13 ± 0.27; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.32 mm (P = 0.67). One year after implant placement there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for peri-implant marginal bone level changes (difference: 0.07 ± 0.11 mm; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.16; P = 0.41).
Conclusions: When teeth extractions were performed atraumatically and sockets were filled with deproteinised bovine bone, sealing the socket with a porcine collagen matrix or a epithelial connective tissue graft showed similar outcomes. The use of porcine collagen matrix allowed simplification of treatment because no palatal donor site was involved.

Keywords: bone volume, porcine collagen matrix, socket preservation, soft tissue graft
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)