We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 3     21. Apr. 2017
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 3  (21.04.2017)

Page 402-410, doi:10.11607/prd.2629, PubMed:28402351


Dimensional Evaluation of Different Ridge Preservation Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Study
Fickl, Stefan / Fischer, Kai / Petersen, Nicole / Happe, Arndt / Schlee, Markus / Schlagenhauf, Ulrich / Kebschull, Moritz
The objective of this study was to quantitatively determine ridge contour changes after different alveolar ridge preservation techniques. An initial total of 40 patients provided a final total of 35 single-gap extraction sites. After tooth removal, the socket was subjected to one of four treatment modalities: placement of a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM; Endobon) covered with a soft tissue punch from the palate (Tx1); placement of DBBM without soft tissue punch (Tx2); placement of an adsorbable collagen membrane (Osseoguard) covering the DBBM (Tx3); and no additional treatment (control). Silicone impressions were obtained before and 6 months after tooth extraction for quantitative-volumetric evaluation on stone cast models. Bone quality and need for further bone augmentation were also noted. Tx1 and Tx3 resulted in significantly less bucco-oral tissue loss when compared to Tx2 and the control group. Premolar teeth and teeth extracted for traumatic reasons revealed significantly less tissue loss. Using barrier membranes or soft tissue punches in addition to placement of DBBM seems to be advantageous to limit bucco-oral tissue atrophy. The clinical benefit, however, is still questionable.