Ridge preservation after ridge expansion with simultaneous guided bone regeneration: a preclinical study.

Stricker, Andres; Fleiner, Jonathan; Stübinger, Stefan; Fleiner, Henrik; Buser, Daniel; Bosshardt, Dieter (2016). Ridge preservation after ridge expansion with simultaneous guided bone regeneration: a preclinical study. Clinical oral implants research, 27(11), e116-e124. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.12574

[img] Text
Ridge preservation after ridge expansion with simultaneous guided bone regeneration.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVE To evaluate ridge preservation after ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in a miniature pig model. MATERIAL AND METHODS In miniature pigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted together with removal of the interdental and buccal bone. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion of the buccal plate were performed with simultaneous placement of two titanium implants per quadrant. On the test side, access by a mucoperiosteal flap followed by GBR with a biphasic calcium phosphate and a collagen membrane was performed. On the contralateral control side, a mucosal flap (MF), leaving the periosteum attached to the buccal bone, was elevated. After healing periods of 6 and 12 weeks, eight and four animals, respectively, were sacrificed for histological and histometric evaluation. RESULTS In the MF group, all 16 implants were osseointegrated, while in the GBR group, one bone fracture occurred, and six of 16 implants were lost. After 6 weeks, significantly higher bone crest levels were found for the GBR group than for the MF group both buccally and lingually (P < 0.001), and buccal bone thickness was greater in the GBR group than in the MF group (P < 0.001 at the implant shoulder [IS]). After 12 weeks, bone was significantly higher in the GBR group compared to the MF group. Furthermore, buccal bone thickness in the GBR group was 0.93, 4.5, and 5.94 mm at, and 2 and 4 mm apical to the IS, respectively. The corresponding values in the MF group were greatly reduced (0, 0.21, and 2.56 mm). Bone loss on the buccal side compared to the lingual side was significantly greater only in the MF group. CONCLUSIONS In this ridge expansion model in miniature pigs, the buccal bone volume was significantly better preserved with GBR when compared to a mucosal access flap, provided that soft tissue healing occurred complication free.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > School of Dental Medicine, Oral Surgery Research
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology

UniBE Contributor:

Buser, Daniel and Bosshardt, Dieter

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0905-7161

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

12 Apr 2017 15:28

Last Modified:

12 Sep 2017 11:42

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/clr.12574

PubMed ID:

25754343

Uncontrolled Keywords:

bone splitting/ridge expansion; guided bone regeneration; miniature pig; osseointegration; ridge preservation

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.93925

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/93925

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback