Centre for Oral Clinical Research, Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK.
Defence Centre for Rehabilitative Dentistry, Defence Primary Health Care (DPHC), Dental Centre Aldershot, Guilford, Surry, UK.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Jul;33(7):681-699. doi: 10.1111/clr.13933. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post-extraction and at 4 months, the mid-buccal and mid-palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross-sectional socket and alveolar-process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post-surgical complications were also recorded.
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (-0.52 mm ± 0.8/-0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (-2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (-2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid-socket cross-sectional area reduction of 4% (-2.27 mm ± 11.89), 1% (-0.88 mm ± 15.48) and 13% (-6.93 mm ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (-7.36 mm ± 10.45), 6% (-7 mm ± 18.97) and 11% (-11.32 mm ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.
比较牙槽嵴保存(GBR)、Socket Seal(SS)技术或未辅助牙槽窝愈合(对照)后,影像学上的骨变化。
需要在前上颌中提取单根牙的患者,随机分为 GBR、SS 和对照组(每组 14 人)。在提取后和 4 个月时记录锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)图像,测量颊中、腭中牙槽嵴高度(BARH/PARH)。还记录牙槽嵴宽度、横截面牙槽窝和牙槽突面积变化、种植体放置可行性、骨增量需求和术后并发症。
发现 SS 技术(0.65mm±1.1/0.65mm±1.42)可使 BARH 和 PARH 增加,GBR 技术(0.07mm±0.83/0.86mm±1.37)可使 BARH 和 PARH 稳定,对照组(-0.52mm±0.8/-0.43mm±0.83)则使 BARH 和 PARH 减少。与对照组相比,GBR 和 SS 的 BARH(p=0.04/.005)和 GBR 的 PARH(p=0.02)之间存在统计学意义。与对照组相比(-2.3mm±1.11),GBR 记录的牙槽嵴宽度减少最小(-2.17mm±0.84)(p=0.89)。GBR、SS 和对照组的中牙槽窝横截面积分别减少 4%(-2.27mm±11.89)、1%(-0.88mm±15.48)和 13%(-6.93mm±8.22)(GBR 与对照组比较,p=0.01)。等效的牙槽突面积减少分别为 8%(-7.36mm±10.45)、6%(-7mm±18.97)和 11%(-11.32mm±10.92)。所有组均支持植入物放置,GBR、SS 和对照组中分别有 57%(n=4)、64%(n=7)和 85%(n=12)出现骨开窗(GBR 与对照组比较,p=0.03)。GBR 肿胀和黏膜颜色改变的风险较高,SS 与移植物隔离和基质破裂有关。
GBR 牙槽嵴保存术在减少拔牙后影像学上的骨尺寸变化方面更有效。