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



Forgotten password?


Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 38 (2018), No. 4     18. June 2018
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 38 (2018), No. 4  (18.06.2018)

Page 549-556, doi:10.11607/prd.3636, PubMed:29889920

Dimensional Evaluation of Different Ridge Preservation Techniques with a Bovine Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Fischer, Kai R. / Mühlemann, Sven / Jung, Ronald E. / Friedmann, Anton / Fickl, Stefan
The objectives of this study were to determine the quantitative changes after different ridge preservation techniques (primary aim) and to assess the possibility of placing a dental implant, the bone quality, and the need for bone augmentation (secondary aim). A total of 35 patients who required extraction of at least one tooth (incisor, canine, or premolar) provided 35 single-gap extraction sites. After minimally invasive tooth removal, the sockets were randomly scheduled for one of four treatment modalities: placement of a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM; Endobon, Biomet 3i) covered with a soft tissue punch from the palate (T1); placement of DBBM alone (T2); placement of DBBM covered with a resorbable collagen membrane (OsseoGuard, Biomet 3i) (T3); or no additional treatment (T4). Silicone impressions were taken before and 6 months after extraction for quantitative-volumetric evaluation (primary outcome). The possibility of placing an implant, bone quality, and need for further bone augmentation were also noted (secondary outcomes). During the study period, no adverse events were observed. No statistically significant difference was found between the four treatments regarding the primary and secondary outcome parameters (P > .05). However, T4 showed double the buccal contour change, with the highest variance compared to the other three groups (T1 -0.874 ± 0.713; T2 -0.968 ± 0.344; T3 -1.26 ± 0.942; T4 -2.15 ± 1.349). Although no statistically significant difference was found between the four treatment modalities, placement of DBBM resulted in only half the contour change (< 1 mm) compared to control sites (> 2 mm). Ridge preservation with a DBBM with or without soft tissue punch should be considered in esthetically demanding cases and delayed or late implant placement.