Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1273–1283 | Cite as

Contour changes after guided bone regeneration of large non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a porcine-derived collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation

  • I. Sanz-Martin
  • L. Ferrantino
  • F. Vignoletti
  • J. Nuñez
  • N. Baldini
  • M. Duvina
  • J. Alcaraz
  • M. Sanz
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate soft tissue contour changes after three different regenerative therapies in chronic ridge defects.

Material and methods

Buccal bone defects were created in the mandible of nine beagle dogs. Augmentation procedures were performed 3 months later using a bone replacement graft (BRG), resorbable collagen membrane (MBG), or a combination of both procedures (CBG). Silicone impressions were taken before tooth extraction (T1), before the augmentation procedure (T2), and 3 months after the regenerative surgeries (T3). Casts were optically scanned and stereolithography files were superimposed to analyze the horizontal changes in ridge contours.

Results

After defect creation, most part of the horizontal changes occurred 4 and 6 mm below the gingival margin. In the mesial defect (D1) at T3, the mean horizontal gain in MBG amounted to 0.47 ± 0.34 mm, 0.79 ± 0.67 mm in the BRG, and 0.87 ± 0.69 mm for the CBG. In the middle defect (D2), the mean changes for the MBG were 0.11 ± 0.31, 1.01 ± 0.91 for the BRG, and 0.98 ± 0.49 for the CBG. The mean changes in the distal defect (D3) amounted to 0.24 ± 0.72 for the MBG, 1.04 ± 0.92 for the BRG, and 0.86 ± 0.56 for the CBG. The differences reached significance in all defects for the comparison MBG-BRG and MBG-CBG, while similar parameters were observed for the comparison BRG-CBG.

Conclusion

BRG and CBG were equally effective and superior to MBG in increasing the horizontal tissue contours. The augmentation seldom reached the values before extraction.

Clinical relevance

Scaffolding materials are needed for contour augmentation when using resorbable collagen membranes.

Keywords

Bovine bone mineral Collagen membrane Bone regeneration Experimental study Wound healing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Nicola Discepoli, Dr. Fernando Luengo who participated in the experimental surgeries, and the staff from the veterinary hospital of Rof Codina in Lugo in particular Prof. Fernando Muñoz. A high appreciation is also expressed to Prof. Massimo De Sanctis and Prof. Raul Caffesse for their contribution to the study.

Funding information

This investigation was partially supported with a research contract between Geistlich Pharma AG and the Universities of Goteborg, Complutense of Madrid, and University of Siena.

Compliance with ethical standards

This investigation was conducted according to Spanish and European Union regulations (European Communities Council Directive 86/609/EEC) on experimental in vivo experimentation.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Sanz-Martín, Dr. Ferrantino, Dr. Vignolettu, Dr. Nuñez, Dr. Baldini, and Dr. Duvina report no conflict of interest. Dr. Sanz reports to have received research grants through the University Complutense of Madrid and lecture fees from Geistlich Pharma.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Rof Codina Foundation (Lugo, Spain) (Ref AE-LU-001/12/INVMED (02)/Outros/04).

Informed consent

No informed consent was obtained since the present was an animal study.

References

  1. 1.
    Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T (2003) Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23(4):313–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP (2012) A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(Suppl 5):1–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Araujo MG, Silva CO, Misawa M, Sukekava F (2015) Alveolar socket healing: what can we learn? Periodontol 2000 68(1):122–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M (2006) Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(Suppl 2):136–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Melcher AH (1969) Role of the periosteum in repair of wounds of the parietal bone of the rat. Arch Oral Biol 14(9):1101–1109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nyman S, Gottlow J, Lindhe J, Karring T, Wennstrom J (1987) New attachment formation by guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontal Res 22(3):252–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donos N, Mardas N, Chadha V (2008) Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). J Clin Periodontol 35(8 Suppl):173–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahlin C, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Linde A, Nyman S (1989) Generation of new bone around titanium implants using a membrane technique: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 4(1):19–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmid J, Hammerle CH, Fluckiger L, Winkler JR, Olah AJ, Gogolewski S, Lang NP (1997) Blood-filled spaces with and without filler materials in guided bone regeneration. A comparative experimental study in the rabbit using bioresorbable membranes. Clin Oral Implants Res 8(2):75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schenk RK, Buser D, Hardwick WR, Dahlin C (1994) Healing pattern of bone regeneration in membrane-protected defects: a histologic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9(1):13–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammerle CH, Schmid J, Olah AJ, Lang NP (1996) A novel model system for the study of experimental guided bone formation in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 7(1):38–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber R, Stadlinger B, Terheyden H (2017) Cell-to-cell communication in guided bone regeneration: molecular and cellular mechanisms. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(9):1139–1146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12929
  13. 13.
    Sanz-Sanchez I, Ortiz-Vigon A, Sanz-Martin I, Figuero E, Sanz M (2015) Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 94(9 Suppl):128S–142SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benic GI, Hammerle CH (2014) Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000 66(1):13–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thoma DS, Martin IS, Muhlemann S, Jung RE (2012) Systematic review of pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals. J Clin Periodontol 39(Suppl 12):37–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanz M, Vignoletti F (2015) Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dent Mater 31(6):640–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jemt T, Lekholm U (2003) Measurements of buccal tissue volumes at single-implant restorations after local bone grafting in maxillas: a 3-year clinical prospective study case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 5(2):63–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schneider D, Grunder U, Ender A, Hammerle CH, Jung RE (2011) Volume gain and stability of peri-implant tissue following bone and soft tissue augmentation: 1-year results from a prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 22(1):28–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benic GI, Elmasry M, Hammerle CH (2015) Novel digital imaging techniques to assess the outcome in oral rehabilitation with dental implants: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(Suppl 11):86–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vignoletti F, Abrahamsson I (2012) Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. J Clin Periodontol 39(Suppl 12):6–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T (2017) Guided bone regeneration of non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13014
  22. 22.
    Sanz Martin I, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS (2016) Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(4):406–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanz-Martin I, Sailer I, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS (2016) Soft tissue stability and volumetric changes after 5 years in pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(8):969–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meloni SM, Jovanovic SA, Urban I, Canullo L, Pisano M, Tallarico M (2017) Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native collagen membrane and 1:1 ratio of particulated xenograft and autologous bone: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(1):38–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12429
  25. 25.
    Schwarz F, Schmucker A, Becker J (2017) Long-term outcomes of simultaneous guided bone regeneration using native and cross-linked collagen membranes after 8 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(7):779–784.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12881
  26. 26.
    Benic GI, Thoma DS, Munoz F, Sanz Martin I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH (2016) Guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects with particulated and block xenogenic bone substitutes. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(5):567–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Araujo M, Linder E, Lindhe J (2009) Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in extraction sockets: an experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(1):1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmitt CM, Doering H, Schmidt T, Lutz R, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA (2013) Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann (R) BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss (R), Puros (R), and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 24(5):576–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Frei M, Belser UC (2013) Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J Periodontol 84(11):1517–1527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naenni N, Schneider D, Jung RE, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CH, Thoma DS (2016) Randomized clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: clinical and histological outcomes at 6 months. Clin Oral Implants Res.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12977
  31. 31.
    Schneider D, Weber FE, Grunder U, Andreoni C, Burkhardt R, Jung RE (2014) A randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial comparing the clinical and histological performance of a new, modified polylactide-co-glycolide acid membrane to an expanded polytetrafluorethylene membrane in guided bone regeneration procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(2):150–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Urban IA, Jovanovic SA, Lozada JL (2009) Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: a retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72 months after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(3):502–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D (1994) A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14(2):166–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Troeltzsch M, Kauffmann P, Gruber R, Brockmeyer P, Moser N, Rau A, Schliephake H (2016) Clinical efficacy of grafting materials in alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 44(10):1618–1629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barone A, Todisco M, Ludovichetti M, Gualini F, Aggstaller H, Torres-Lagares D, Rohrer MD, Prasad HS, Kenealy JN (2013) A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter evaluation of extraction socket preservation comparing two bovine xenografts: clinical and histologic outcomes. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33(6):795–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fickl S, Fischer K, Petersen N, Happe A, Schlee M, Schlagenhauf U, Kebschull M (2017) Dimensional evaluation of different ridge preservation techniques: a randomized clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37(3):403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Araujo MG, Sonohara M, Hayacibara R, Cardaropoli G, Lindhe J (2002) Lateral ridge augmentation by the use of grafts comprised of autologous bone or a biomaterial. An experiment in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 29(12):1122–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    von Arx T, Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Buser D (2001) Lateral ridge augmentation using different bone fillers and barrier membrane application. A histologic and histomorphometric pilot study in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 12(3):260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Capelli M, Testori T, Galli F, Zuffetti F, Motroni A, Weinstein R, Del Fabbro M (2013) Implant-buccal plate distance as diagnostic parameter: a prospective cohort study on implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. J Periodontol 84(12):1768–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Friberg B, Jemt T (2012) Soft tissue augmentation in connection to dental implant treatment using a synthetic, porous material—a case series with a 6-month follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 14(6):872–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schneider D, Schmidlin PR, Philipp A, Annen BM, Ronay V, Hammerle CH, Attin T, Jung RE (2014) Labial soft tissue volume evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 41(6):612–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Akcali A, Schneider D, Unlu F, Bicakci N, Kose T, Hammerle CH (2015) Soft tissue augmentation of ridge defects in the maxillary anterior area using two different methods: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(6):688–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chappuis V, Engel O, Shahim K, Reyes M, Katsaros C, Buser D (2015) Soft tissue alterations in esthetic postextraction sites: a 3-dimensional analysis. J Dent Res 94(9 Suppl):187S–193SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thoma DS, Jung RE, Schneider D, Cochran DL, Ender A, Jones AA, Gorlach C, Uebersax L, Graf-Hausner U, Hammerle CH (2010) Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices: a volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol 37(7):659–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jemt T, Lekholm U (2005) Single implants and buccal bone grafts in the anterior maxilla: measurements of buccal crestal contours in a 6-year prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 7(3):127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Windisch SI, Jung RE, Sailer I, Studer SP, Ender A, Hammerle CH (2007) A new optical method to evaluate three-dimensional volume changes of alveolar contours: a methodological in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(5):545–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fickl S, Schneider D, Zuhr O, Hinze M, Ender A, Jung RE, Hurzeler MB (2009) Dimensional changes of the ridge contour after socket preservation and buccal overbuilding: an animal study. J Clin Periodontol 36(5):442–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rebele SF, Zuhr O, Schneider D, Jung RE, Hurzeler MB (2014) Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part II. Volumetric studies on healing dynamics and gingival dimensions. J Clin Periodontol 41(6):593–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thalmair T, Fickl S, Schneider D, Hinze M, Wachtel H (2013) Dimensional alterations of extraction sites after different alveolar ridge preservation techniques—a volumetric study. J Clin Periodontol 40(7):721–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Periodontology, Faculty of OdontologyUniversity Complutense of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Facultad de OdontologíaUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversità di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Periodontics and Fixed ProsthodonticsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly
  5. 5.Oral Surgery DepartmentUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations