Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation
- 1 April 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Clinical Oral Investigations
- Vol. 25 (4), 2213-2227
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5
Abstract
Objective To assess the contour and volumetric changes of hard and soft tissues after guided bone regeneration (GBR) using two types of barrier membranes together with a xenogeneic bone substitute in dehiscence-type defects around dental implants. Material and methods In 8 Beagle dogs, after tooth extraction, two-wall chronified bone defects were developed. Then, implants were placed with a buccal dehiscence defect that was treated with GBR using randomly: (i) deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) covered by a synthetic polylactic membrane (test group), (ii) DBBM plus a porcine natural collagen membrane (positive control) and (iii) defect only covered by the synthetic membrane (negative control group). Outcomes were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. Micro-CT was used to evaluate the hard tissue volumetric changes and STL files from digitized cast models were used to measure the soft tissues contour linear changes. Results Test and positive control groups were superior in terms of volume gain and contour changes when compared with the negative control. Soft tissue changes showed at 4 weeks statistically significant superiority for test and positive control groups compared with negative control. After 12 weeks, the results were superior for test and positive control groups but not statistically significant, although, with a lesser magnitude, the negative control group exhibited gains in both, soft and hard tissues. Conclusions Both types of membranes (collagen and synthetic) attained similar outcomes, in terms of hard tissue volume gain and soft tissue contours when used in combination with DBBMThis publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- A systematic review of post‐extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humansClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011
- Polymeric membranes for guided bone regenerationBiotechnology Journal, 2011
- Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogsClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009
- Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence‐type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogsClinical Oral Implants Research, 2008
- Angiogenesis pattern of native and cross‐linked collagen membranes: an immunohistochemical study in the ratClinical Oral Implants Research, 2006
- Biodegradation of differently cross‐linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the ratClinical Oral Implants Research, 2005
- Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dogJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2005
- The Influence of the Design of Two Different Bioresorbable Barriers on the Results of Guided Tissue Regeneration Therapy. An Intra‐Individual Comparative Study in the MonkeyThe Journal of Periodontology, 1995
- The use of a new bioresorbable barrier for guided bone regeneration in connection with implant installation. Case reports.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1994
- Healing of Bone Defects by Guided Tissue RegenerationPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1988