Deproteinized bovine bone derived with collagen improves soft and bone tissue outcomes in flapless immediate implant approach and immediate provisionalization: a randomized clinical trial

  • Felipe Fonseca Girlanda
  • Hsu Shao Feng
  • Mônica Grazieli Corrêa
  • Márcio Zaffalon Casati
  • Suzana Peres Pimentel
  • Fernanda Vieira Ribeiro
  • Fabiano Ribeiro CiranoEmail author
Original Article



This study aimed at evaluating soft and hard tissue dimensions after immediate implant placement and immediate temporization with or without alveolar preservation at the maxillary anterior region.

Materials and methods

Twenty-two patients needing maxillary incisor extraction and with the possibility of immediate implant placement were randomly assigned to the following groups: test (n = 11): immediate implant placement + deproteinized bovine bone derived with collagen inserted into the alveolus or control (n = 11): immediate implant placement without biomaterial. All soft tissue measurements were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after implant therapy. Cone beam tomography was performed at baseline and at 6 months after implant placement to evaluate hard tissue dimension.


The test group presented higher height of soft tissue at mesiobuccal and distobuccal sites at 3 months and 6 months when compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Regarding the bone tissue, the test group showed higher buccolingual ridge dimension at 6 months when compared to the control group (p < 0.05).


It can be concluded that the use of deproteinized bovine bone derived with collagen together with immediate dental implants results in better soft and bone tissue outcomes than immediate implants alone.

Clinical relevance

The use of deproteinized bovine bone derived with collagen may enhance the results regarding soft and bone tissue in combination with immediate implant and temporization.


Biomaterial Extraction socket Grafting Healing Immediate implant Tomographic evaluation 



This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the local ethical committee of Paulista University (56342516.8.0000.5512).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Willings M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV (2008) Different loading strategies of dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. Eur J Oral Implantol 1:259–276Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Javed F, Romanos GE (2010) The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent 38:612–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips K, Kois JC (1998) Aesthetic peri-implant site development. The restorative connection. Dent Clin N Am 42:57–70Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barone A, Toti P, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Derchi G, Covani U (2014) Extraction socket healing in humans after ridge preservation techniques: comparison between flapless and flapped procedures in a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 85:14–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stoupel J, Lee CT, Glick J, Sanz-Miralles E, Chiuzan C, Papapanou PN (2016) Immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone using a flapless or a flap-involving approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol 43:1171–1179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L (2015) Soft tissue contour changes at immediate postextraction single-tooth implants with immediate restoration: a 12-month prospective cohort study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 35:191–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hermans A, Vervaeke S, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R (2016) A 5-year prospective study on single immediate implants in the aesthetic zone. J Clin Periodontol 43:702–709. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Araújo MG, da Silva JCC, de Mendonça AF, Lindhe J (2015) Ridge alterations following grafting of fresh extraction sockets in man. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:407–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roccuzzo M, Gaudioso L, Bunino M, Dalmasso P (2014) Long-term stability of soft tissues following alveolar ridge preservation: 10-year results of a prospective study around non submerged implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:795–804. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alkan EA, Parlar A, Yildirim B, Senguven B (2013) Histological comparison of healing following tooth extraction with ridge preservation using enamel matrix derivatives versus Bio-Oss Collagen: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:1522–1528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler M (2008) Tissue alterations after tooth extraction with and without surgical trauma: a volumetric study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 35:356–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, Lindhe J (2005) Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:645–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Araújo MG, Lindhe J (2005) Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:212–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brägger U, Pasquali L, Kornman KS (1988) Remodelling of interdental alveolar bone after periodontal flap procedures assessed by means of computer-assisted densitometric image analysis (CADIA). J Clin Periodontol 15:558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood DL, Hoag PM, Donnenfeld OW, Rosenfeld LD (1972) Alveolar crest reduction following full and partial thickness flaps. J Periodontol 43:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tavtigian R (1970) The height of the facial radicular alveolar crest following apically positioned flap operations. J Periodontol 41:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Rouck T, Collys K, Wyn I, Cosyn J (2009) Instant provisionalization of immediate single-tooth implants is essential to optimize esthetic treatment outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:566–570. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pontes AE, Ribeiro FS, da Silva VC, Margonar R, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, Marcantonio E Jr (2008) Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. J Periodontol 79:486–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park JB (2010) Healing of extraction socket grafted with deproteinized bovine bone and acellular dermal matrix: histomorphometric evaluation. Implant Dent 19:307–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Araújo MG, Lindhe J (2009) Ridge preservation with the use of Bio-Oss Collagen: a 6-month study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:433–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seibert JS (1993) Treatment of moderate localized alveolar ridge defects. Preventive and reconstructive concepts in therapy. Dent Clin N Am 37:265–280Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (2004) Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 31:820–828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen ST, Buser D (2014) Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla—a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29:186–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilson TG, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran D (1998) Implants placed in immediate extraction sites: a report of histologic and histometric analyses of human biopsies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:333–341Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, Lindhe J (2006) Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:615–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akimoto K, Becker W, Persson R, Baker DA, Rohrer MD, O’Neal RB (1999) Evaluation of titanium implants placed into simulated extraction sockets: a study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:351–360Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T (1988) Implant fixation improved by close fit cylindrical implant—bone interface studied in rabbits. Acta Orthop Scand 59:272–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Caudill RF, Meffert RM (1991) Histologic analysis of the osseointegration of endosseous implants in simulated extraction sockets with and without e-PTFE barriers. 1. Preliminary findings. Int J Periodontics Restorative, vol 11. Dent, pp 207–215Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hasturk H, Kantarci A, Ghattas M, Dangaria SJ, Abdallah R, Morgan EF, Diekwisch TG, Ashman A, Van Dyke T (2014) The use of light/chemically hardened polymethylmethacrylate, polyhydroxylethylmethacrylate, and calcium hydroxide graft material in combination with polyanhydride around implants and extraction sockets in minipigs: part II: histologic and micro-CT evaluations. J Periodontol 85:1230–1239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Assaf JH, Zanatta FB, de Brito RB Jr, França FM (2013) Computed tomographic evaluation of alterations of the buccolingual width of the alveolar ridge after immediate implant placement associated with the use of a synthetic bone substitute. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:757–763. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Caneva M, Botticelli D, Morelli F, Cesaretti G, Beolchini M, Lang NP (2012) Alveolar process preservation at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets using deproteinized bovine bone mineral—an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:789–796. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Araújo MG, Linder E, Lindhe J (2011) Bio-Oss collagen in the buccal gap at immediate implants: a 6-month study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC (2007) A prospective clinical study of non-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:552–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanz M, Lindhe J, Alcaraz J, Sanz-Sanchez I, Cecchinato D (2017) The effect of placing a bone replacement graft in the gap at immediately placed implants: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:902–910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cardaropoli D, Gaveglio L, Gherlone E, Cardaropoli G (2014) Soft tissue contour changes at immediate implants: a randomized controlled clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:631–637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clementini M, Tiravia L, De Risi V, Vittorini Orgeas G, Mannocci A, de Sanctis M (2015) Dimensional changes after immediate implant placement with or without simultaneous regenerative procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 42:666–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, Lindhe J (2008) The influence of bio-Oss collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J periodontics restorative, vol 28. Dent, pp 123–135Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsoukaki M, Kalpidis CD, Sakellari D, Tsalikis L, Mikrogiorgis G, Konstantinidis A (2013) Clinical, radiographic, microbiological, and immunological outcomes of flapped vs. flapless dental implants: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:969–976. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee CT, Chiu TS, Chuang SK, Tarnow D, Stoupel J (2014) Alterations of the bone dimension following immediate implant placement into extraction socket: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 41:914–926. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Delgado-Ruiz R, Romanos GE, Alexandre Gerhke S, Gomez-Moreno G, Maté-Sánchez de Val JE, Calvo-Guirado JL (2016) Biological effects of compressive forces exerted on particulate bone grafts during socket preservation: animal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:792–801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Romanos GE, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Gómez-Moreno G, López-López PJ, Mate Sanchez de Val JE, Calvo-Guirado JL (2018) Role of mechanical compression on bone regeneration around a particulate bone graft material: an experimental study in rabbit calvaria. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(6):612-619.
  42. 42.
    van Steenberghe D, Callens A, Geers L, Jacobs R (2000) The clinical use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral on bone regeneration in conjunction with immediate implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cosyn J, Hooghe N, De Bruyn H (2012) A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment. J Clin Periodontol 39:582–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knox R, Caudill R, Meffert R (1991) Histologic evaluation of dental endosseous implants placed in surgically created extraction defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 11:364–375Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D (2006) State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 10:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Araki M, Kawashima S, Terakado M (2003) A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:371–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe Fonseca Girlanda
    • 1
  • Hsu Shao Feng
    • 1
  • Mônica Grazieli Corrêa
    • 1
  • Márcio Zaffalon Casati
    • 1
  • Suzana Peres Pimentel
    • 1
  • Fernanda Vieira Ribeiro
    • 1
  • Fabiano Ribeiro Cirano
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dental Research Division, School of DentistryUniversidade Paulista (UNIP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations