Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
Published on: November 16, 2018
Cortico-Cancellous Collagenic Porcine Bone for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Cohort Comparative Study
Chiara Cinquini1,2, Emira D'amico3, Giovanna Iezzi3
1Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and of Critical Area Pathology, Complex Operative Unit of Stomatology and Oral Surgery, University-Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Objectives:
The primary aim of this study was to compare the histomorphometric characteristics of two different cortico-cancellous collagenic porcine bone (CCPB) formulations combined with a stabilizing agent used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), and the secondary aim was to evaluate and compare clinical and aesthetic outcomes of dental implants placed in augmented sites.
Materials And Methods:
This was a prospective, cohort-comparative study conducted on patients requiring a tooth extraction followed by ARP and subsequent implant placement. Tooth extractions were performed trying to reduce the surgical trauma as much as possible, and then ARP was performed using two different formulations of CCPB combined with a thermogel in different ratios (50:50 hand-mixed and 80:20 pre-mixed). After 4 months of healing, implant placement was performed, and a bone biopsy was retrieved from the surgical site for histomorphometric analyses. Implants were rehabilitated 3 months following placement with screw-retained crowns, then patients were re-evaluated 1 year following prosthetic loading.
Results:
We report the clinical and histomorphometric outcomes of 20 patients divided into the two study groups (10 patients per group). ARP performed with a hand-mixed biomaterial in a 50:50 ratio had higher percentages of newly formed bone (36.15% vs. 27.18%) when compared to a pre-mixed biomaterial in an 80:20 ratio, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.064). Implants placed in ARP-treated sites showed a very low mean marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up in both experimental groups (0.06 ± 0.15 mm in the 50:50 group and 0.25 ± 0.35 mm in the 80:20 group) with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.42), as well as the aesthetic outcomes assessed through the pink aesthetic score.
Conclusions:
Both biomaterials showed effective and favorable outcomes, and the histomorphometric differences observed in our sample did not have any impact on the final clinical and aesthetic outcomes.
More Related Videos
08:41Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
09:49Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
Published on: February 23, 2024