RESEARCH ARTICLE
Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Histomorphometric Analysis
Sigmar Schnutenhaus1, 2, *, Werner Götz3, Jens Dreyhaupt4, Heike Rudolph2, Ralph G. Luthardt2
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2018Volume: 12
First Page: 916
Last Page: 928
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-12-916
DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010916
Article History:
Received Date: 7/5/2018Revision Received Date: 28/8/2018
Acceptance Date: 23/9/2018
Electronic publication date: 30/10/2018
Collection year: 2018
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objective:
This study presents the histomorphometric findings after tooth extraction with and without Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) with a collagen cone filling the socket in combination with a collagen membrane covering the socket.
Materials and Methods:
In a controlled randomized clinical study, 10 patients were treated with the combination material after tooth extraction. In 10 patients, the extraction sockets were left to heal without further intervention. Soft tissue, new bone formation, bone quality and bone remodeling, blood flow vascularization, and inflammation were evaluated histomorphometrically. This was performed (semi-) quantitatively using a blinded protocol.
Results:
The statistical evaluation showed no significant difference for any parameter. When the combination material was used, more pronounced remodeling, increased osteoblast activity, and increased vascularization were demonstrated based on the histomorphometric findings. In contrast, there were reduced levels of osteogenesis and less mineralization. There was slightly more bundle bone in patients with ARP.
Conclusion:
The histomorphometric analysis of ARP with a combination material consisting of a collagen cone and a collagen membrane showed no significant differences in terms of new bone formation and bone quality. Descriptively, however, different manifestations were seen that might benefit from being documented using larger samples and being tested for clinical relevance.
