A Pilot Study Comparing Dimensional Alterations After Alveolar Ridge Preservation with Xenograft Versus Allograft
Summary
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using allograft (AG) or xenograft (XG) effectively minimizes dimensional changes in extraction sites. Allograft showed superior ridge width preservation, while xenograft trended towards better height preservation, reducing the need for further bone augmentation.
Area of Science:
- Dentistry
- Periodontology
- Oral Surgery
Background:
- Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is crucial after tooth extraction to maintain bone volume for subsequent implant placement.
- Buccal dehiscence defects present unique challenges in maintaining ridge dimensions.
- Comparing bone substitutes like allograft (AG) and xenograft (XG) is essential for optimizing ARP outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of allograft (AG) versus xenograft (XG) in preserving ridge dimensions following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in non-molar extraction sites with buccal dehiscence defects.
- To evaluate the need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement after ARP with AG or XG.
Main Methods:
- A single-center pilot randomized clinical trial included 12 patients undergoing single-rooted tooth extraction.
- Extraction sockets were grafted with either AG or XG, covered with a membrane and collagen matrix.
- Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken immediately post-surgery and at six months for dimensional analysis.
Main Results:
- Allograft (AG) demonstrated significantly better ridge width preservation (0.41 mm) compared to xenograft (XG) (1.78 mm) at 2 mm below the crest (p = 0.007).
- A trend favoring XG for better preservation of buccal and palatal/lingual ridge height was observed, but not statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.58).
- Only one site (8.3%) in the AG group required additional bone augmentation at implant placement.
Conclusions:
- Both allograft and xenograft are effective in minimizing dimensional changes in alveolar ridge preservation for non-molar extraction sites with buccal dehiscence defects.
- Allograft may offer superior ridge width preservation, while xenograft might better preserve ridge height.
- Further large-scale clinical studies are warranted to validate these findings and confirm the long-term efficacy of both materials.
