Bienz Stefan P, Deggeller Philippe C, Kraus Riccardo D, Green Buzhor Marina, Thoma Daniel S, Jung Ronald E
Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Int J Dent. 2025 Oct 31;2025:2617319. doi: 10.1155/ijod/2617319. eCollection 2025.
To compare the volume stability of guided bone regeneration (GBR) on peri-implant bone dehiscence defects during flap closure using a novel bioresorbable device with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) or an L-shaped DBBM with 10% collagen (DBBM-C).
A bioresorbable device was designed and printed using a medical-grade polyglycolide-colactide copolymer (PGLA). Twenty peri-implant box-shaped bone defects were created in 10 pig mandibles. GBR procedures were performed with: device (device + DBBM + collagen membrane) or L-shape (L-shaped DBBM-C + collagen membrane + fixation pins). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were carried out prior and after wound closure. The horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder, procedure duration, and difficulty of each GBR procedure were recorded.
No statistically significant differences for the horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder were obtained (=0.8652). For the device, the median measured 2.35 mm (first quartile [Q1]: 2.03; third quartile [Q3]: 2.68) and and for L-shape it was 3.05 mm (Q1:2.48; Q3:3.23). The amount of time for the procedure was statistically significantly lower with 149.5 s using the device (Q1:127.25; Q3:160.5) compared to 206.5 s (Q1:198.75; Q3:236.75) using L-shape (=0.0039). Difficulty was statistically significantly lower for the device with 2 (Q1:1; Q3:3) compared to 5 (Q1:4; Q3:5.25) for L-shape (=0.0020).
GBR with the device in combination with DBBM and a collagen membrane led to a similar amount of horizontal thickness of the augmentation as an L-shaped DBBM-C with a collagen membrane and fixation pins. The procedure with the device was significantly faster and easier for the clinician.
使用一种新型生物可吸收装置与脱蛋白牛骨矿物质(DBBM)或含10%胶原蛋白的L形DBBM(DBBM-C),比较在瓣关闭过程中引导骨再生(GBR)对种植体周围骨开裂缺损的体积稳定性。
使用医用级聚乙交酯-丙交酯共聚物(PGLA)设计并打印一种生物可吸收装置。在10头猪的下颌骨中制造20个种植体周围盒形骨缺损。采用以下方法进行GBR手术:装置组(装置+DBBM+胶原膜)或L形组(L形DBBM-C+胶原膜+固定针)。在伤口闭合前后进行锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)。记录颊侧种植体肩部增厚的水平厚度、手术持续时间以及每个GBR手术的难度。
颊侧种植体肩部增厚的水平厚度无统计学显著差异(P=0.8652)。装置组的中位数为2.35毫米(第一四分位数[Q1]:2.03;第三四分位数[Q3]:2.68),L形组为3.05毫米(Q1:2.48;Q3:3.23)。与L形组的206.5秒(Q1:198.75;Q3:236.75)相比,装置组的手术时间在统计学上显著更短,为149.5秒(Q1:127.25;Q3:160.5)(P=0.0039)。装置组的难度在统计学上显著低于L形组,分别为2(Q1:1;Q3:3)和5(Q1:4;Q3:5.25)(P=0.0020)。
使用该装置联合DBBM和胶原膜进行GBR,与使用含胶原膜和固定针的L形DBBM-C相比,增厚的水平厚度相似。该装置手术对临床医生来说明显更快且更容易。