Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Alveolar ridge dimensional changes following ridge preservation procedure: part-2 - CBCT 3D analysis in non-human
Mostafa Omran1, Seiko Min2, Alaa Abdelhamid1
1Dental Research Center (DRC) and Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Research Unit (TEBRU), Qassim College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ridge preservation involving novel devices used for obturation of socket orifice (Socket cap; SocketKAP(™) ) and resorbable cage used for space maintenance in sites with facial wall dehiscence (Socket cage; SocketKAGE(™) ).
Material And Methods:
Eight teeth were extracted in each of six Macaca fascicularis non-human primates. Six intervention groups consisted of the following: Group A: intact socket negative control. Group B: intact socket: socket cap. Group C: intact socket filled with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) + socket cap. Group D: dehiscence: negative control. Group E: dehiscence: socket cap + socket cage. Group F: dehiscence: filled with ABBM + socket cap + socket cage. CBCT scans were obtained preoperatively and at 6 and 12 weeks following intervention. The pre- and postoperative scans were superimposed, to quantify 3D volumetric alveolar bone changes.
Results:
Volumetric bone loss occurred in all sockets, not only within the cretal zone (0-3 mm) to the ridge crest, as has been commonly reported by other investigators, but significant bone loss was also detected in the zone which was 3-6 mm apical to the alveolar crest. For intact sockets, socket cap + ABBM led to significantly greater percentages of remaining bone volume when compared to groups A and B. A significant difference favoring socket cap + socket cage + ABBM treatment was observed for sockets with facial dehiscence defects compared to groups D and E.
Conclusions:
Socket cap in conjunction with ABBM appears effective in limiting post-extraction volumetric bone loss in intact sockets, while socket cap + socket cage + ABBM appears effective in limiting post-extraction bone loss in sockets with dehiscence defects.
