Alveolar ridge preservation of two‐wall bone defects using mineralized dentin matrix: An experimental pre‐clinical study

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 35; no. 4; pp. 407 - 418
• Main Authors: Yan, Zi‐Yu, Wang, Fei, Han, Jian‐Min, Wu, Bin‐Zhang, Guo, Chuan‐Bin, Cui, Nian‐Hui
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2024
• Subjects: Alveolar bone; Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology; Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Process - pathology; Alveolar Process - surgery; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; alveolar ridge preservation; Animals; Bone growth; Bone healing; Bone surgery; Bones; Collagen; Defects; Dental roots; Dentin; digital technologies; Dogs; Healing; Membranes; Mineralization; mineralized dentin matrix; Osteogenesis; Premolars; Roots; Teeth; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket - pathology; Tooth Socket - surgery; two‐wall bone defect; two‐wall bone defect; mineralized dentin matrix; alveolar ridge preservation; digital technologies; bone healing
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.14239

Objectives To study bone healing of two‐wall bone defects after alveolar ridge preservation using mineralized dentin matrix. Materials and Methods After distal roots extraction of second and fourth premolars (P2, P4) on one lateral mandible in 12 beagles, two‐wall bone defects (5 × 5 × 5 mm) were surgically created distally to the remaining mesial roots of P2 and P4. A total of 24 sites were randomly allocated to three groups (implant material‐ time of execution): mineralized dentin matrix (MDM)‐3 m (MDM + collagen membrane; 3 months), MDM‐6 m (MDM particles + collagen membrane; 6 months), and C‐6 m (collagen membrane only; 6 months). Clinical, radiographic, digital, and histological examinations were performed 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results The bone healing in MDM groups were better compared to Control group (volume of bone regenerated in total: 25.12 mm3 vs. 13.30 mm3, p = .046; trabecular volume/total volume: 58.84% vs. 39.18%, p = .001; new bone formation rate: 44.13% vs. 31.88%, p = .047). Vertically, the radiological bone level of bone defect in MDM‐6 m group was higher than that in C‐6 m group (vertical height of bone defect: 1.55 mm vs. 2.74 mm, p = .018). Horizontally, no significant differences in buccolingual bone width were found between MDM and C groups at any time or at any level below the alveolar ridge. The percentages of remaining MDM were <1% in both MDM‐3 m and MDM‐6 m groups. Conclusions MDM improved bone healing of two‐wall bone defects and might be considered as a socket fill material used following tooth extraction.