Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department Oral Implantology and Prosthodontics, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Nov;31(11):1047-1060. doi: 10.1111/clr.13651. Epub 2020 Sep 9.
To investigate whether xenograft EB (EndoBon) is non-inferior to xenograft BO (Bio-Oss) when used in reconstructive surgery of peri-implant osseous defects.
Dental patients with one implant each demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized to receive surgical debridement and defect fill with either BO or EB. Changes in bone level (BL) and intrabony defect depth (IDD) evaluated radiographically were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included changes in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and suppuration on probing (SoP). All outcomes were recorded before treatment and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment.
Twenty-four patients (n = 11 BO, n = 13 EB) completed the study. Both groups demonstrated significant within-group improvements in all clinical and radiographic parameters at 6 and 12 months (p ≤ .001). At 12 months, both groups presented with IDD reductions of 2.5-3.0 mm on average. The inter-group differences were not statistically significant at all time points and for all the examined parameters (p > .05). While the radiographic defect fill in both groups exceeded > 1 mm and can be considered treatment success, successful treatment outcomes as defined by Consensus Reporting (no further bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SoP) were identified in 2/11 (18%) BO and 0/13 (0%) EB individuals (Fisher's exact test, p = .199).
Within the limitations of this pilot study, the application of xenograft EB showed to be non-inferior to xenograft BO when used in reconstructive surgery of peri-implant osseous defects.
研究异种移植物 EB（EndoBon）在种植体周围骨缺损重建术中是否不劣于异种移植物 BO（Bio-Oss）。
每位患者各植入 1 颗种植体，诊断为种植体周围炎，将这些患者随机分为两组，分别接受 BO 或 EB 填充的手术清创和缺损修复。骨水平（BL）和骨内缺损深度（IDD）的变化通过影像学评估，作为主要结果。次要结果包括探诊袋深度（PPD）、探诊出血（BoP）和探诊溢脓（SoP）的变化。所有结果均在治疗前和治疗后 6 个月和 12 个月记录。
24 例患者（n=11 BO，n=13 EB）完成了研究。两组患者在治疗后 6 个月和 12 个月时，所有临床和影像学参数均表现出显著的组内改善（p≤0.001）。治疗后 12 个月，两组 IDD 平均减少 2.5-3.0mm。所有时间点和所有检查参数的组间差异均无统计学意义（p>0.05）。虽然两组的影像学缺损填充均超过>1mm，可视为治疗成功，但根据共识报告（无进一步骨丢失、PPD≤5mm、无 BoP 和无 SoP），只有 2/11（18%）的 BO 组和 0/13（0%）的 EB 组患者达到成功的治疗效果（Fisher 确切检验，p=0.199）。
在本初步研究的限制范围内，异种移植物 EB 的应用在种植体周围骨缺损的重建术中不劣于异种移植物 BO。
