Guided bone regeneration around dental implants in the atrophic alveolar ridge using a bioresorbable barrier. An experimental study in the monkey

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 8; no. 4; pp. 323 - 331
• Main Authors: Hürzeler, Markus B., Quiñones, Carlos R., Hutmacher, Dietmar, Schüpbach, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen Munksgaard International Publishers 01.08.1997
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Animals; Biocompatible Materials; Biodegradation, Environmental; bioresorbable barrier; Bone Regeneration; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; guided bone regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Lactic Acid; Macaca mulatta; Materials Testing; Maxilla; Membranes, Artificial; Polyglycolic Acid; Polymers; Porosity
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080411.x

The aim of this study was to evaluate guided bone regeneration (GBR) around dental implants placed in atrophic alveolar ridges using an experimental, nonporous bioresorbable barrier. In 8 Rhesus monkeys, the maxillary canines and lateral incisors were extracted bilaterally and the remaining alveoli were reduced to create atrophic ridges. After a healing period of 3 months, soft tissue expansion was performed using a subperiosteal tissue expander. After 1 month of tissue expansion, an IMZ implant was placed in the atrophic ridge on each side in such a way that its coronal 4 mm to 5 mm remained circumferentially exposed above the bone level. The test implants were covered with a bioresorbable barrier made of poly (D,L‐lactid‐co‐tri‐methylencarbonate) in a 70/30 ratio, whereas the control implants were covered with a nonresorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e‐PTFE) barrier. The e‐FTFE barriers were stabilized with titanium minipins while the bioresorbable barriers were analogously fixed using bioresorbable minipins made of poly (L‐lactid‐co‐D,L‐lactid) 70/30. Clinical healing progressed uneventfully in both groups and no soft tissue dehiscences occurred. Histometric and histomorphometric analyses were performed 5 months post surgery. Both test and control implants exhibited direct bone‐to‐implant contact to variable extents. The mean direct mineralized bone‐to‐implant contact length fraction was 32% of the total implant length in the test sites and 58% in the control sites. Control sites exhibited significantly greater bone fill compared to the experimental sites (P<0.00l). Histologic observations of test specimens demonstrated a moderate inflammatory reaction related to the degradation and resorption products of the barrier. In conclusion, the nonresorbable eFTFE GBR barrier was found to be superior to the bioresorbable barriers tested in the present investigation.