Randomized clinical trial of ridge preservation using porcine bone/cross‐linked collagen vs. bovine bone/non‐cross‐linked collagen: cone beam computed tomographic analysis

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 28; no. 12; pp. 1492 - 1500
• Main Authors: Lim, Hyun‐Chang, Jung, Ui‐Won, You, Hoon, Lee, Jung‐Seok
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.12.2017
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control; Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; Animals; Biomaterials; Biomedical materials; bone substitutes; Clinical trials; Collagen; Collagen - therapeutic use; Computation; Computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Crosslinking; Dentistry; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Heterografts; Humans; Motivation; Preservation; Prospective Studies; randomized controlled trial; Single-Blind Method; Statistical analysis; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket - surgery; collagen; bone substitutes; tooth extraction; cone beam computed tomography; randomized controlled trial
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13017

Purpose The aim of this study was to radiographically compare horizontal and vertical alterations of the alveolar ridge after ridge preservation using different combinations of biomaterials. Materials and methods The patients were randomly assigned into two groups: (a) the test group, which received collagenated porcine bone plus cross‐linked collagen membrane (n = 15), and (b) the control group, which received collagenated bovine bone plus non‐cross‐linked collagen membrane (n = 15). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately after ridge preservation and 4 months thereafter to compare the horizontal and vertical alterations of the ridge. Intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. Results In both analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the horizontal alteration of the alveolar ridge between the test and control groups: −1.3 ± 0.6 (ITT)/1.2 ± 0.5 (PP) vs. −1.5 ± 0.9 mm at the 1‐mm level; −1.2 ± 0.7 (ITT and PP) vs. −1.2 ± 0.7 mm at the 3‐mm level; and −0.9 ± 0.7 (ITT)/ −0.9 ± 0.7 (PP) vs. −0.9 ± 0.9 mm at the 5‐mm level, whereas the vertical height in the midfacial area was significantly reduced in the test group compared with the control group: −‐1.1 ± 2.8 (ITT)/1.5 ± 3.0 (PP) vs. −0.7 ± 1.8 mm. Conclusions The horizontal ridge alteration in ridge preservation did not differ significantly between using the test the control groups, but the vertical ridge alteration was more pronounced when using the test group (KCT0001709).