Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparison of different sizes of Iranian bone allograft particles (CenoBone) in preserving grafted socket dimensions
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
 
 
Submission date: 2020-11-22
 
 
Acceptance date: 2020-12-10
 
 
Publication date: 2020-12-31
 
 
Medical Studies 2020;36(4):282-289
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Teeth are extracted for a variety of reasons, including severe decay, endodontic problems, severe periodontal destruction, inadequate residual crown structure, root resorption, iatrogenic factors such as perforations, injuries due to trauma, and cosmetic problems. Aim of the research: To compare different sizes of Iranian bone allograft particles (CenoBone) in preserving grafted socket dimensions.

Material and methods:
It was an experimental study. Twenty healthy patients who had 25 unpreserved single-rooted teeth were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the first group, allograft particles with a size of 150–500 µm and in the second group, particles with a size of 1000–2000 µm were placed in the socket. Then, Iranian resorbable membrane (CenoBone) was placed on the socket openings and buccal wall and was initially closed by a coronalizing buccal flap. Buccal wall height and ridge width in the two groups were compared immediately after surgery and 4 months after surgery with radiological evaluation (cone-beam computed tomography – CBCT) of the region.

Results:
In both groups the horizontal dimension was significantly different after treatment (p < 0.002). In both groups the vertical height was significantly different after treatment (first group: p < 0.001, second group: p < 0.003).

Conclusions:
Use of CenoBone to fill bone socket is essential to preservation alveolar bone dimensions, because use of this material improves soft and hard tissue.
REFERENCES (18)
1.
Witte F, Ulrich H, Palm C, Willbold E. Biodegradable magnesium scaffolds: Part II: peri-implant bone remodeling. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007; 81: 757-765.
 
2.
Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23: 313-323.
 
3.
Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 950-958.
 
4.
Ten Heggeler JM, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 779-788.
 
5.
Toloue SM, Chesnouiu-Matei I, Bhanchard SB. A clinical and histomorphometric study of calcium sulfat compared with freeze-dried bone allograft for alveolar ridghe preservation. J Periodontol 2012; 83: 847-855.
 
6.
Azimi HR, Jalayer T, Babaei H. Radiographic assessment of allograft in alveol preservation procedure after extract tooth. J Res Dentistry 2012; 9: 156-160.
 
7.
Marconcini S, Giammarinaro E, Derchi G, Alfonsi F, Covani U, Barone A. Clinical outcomes of implants placed in ridge-preserved versus nonpreserved sites: a 4-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dentistry Rel Res 2018; 20: 906-914.
 
8.
Amoian B, Seyedmajidi M, Safipor H, Ebrahimipour S. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of two grafting materials Cenobone and ITB-MBA in open sinus lift surgery. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dentistry 2016; 6: 480-486.
 
9.
Araujo MG, da Silva JC, de Mendonca AF, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following grafting of fresh extraction sockets in man. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 407-412.
 
10.
Abolfazli N, Saleh Saber F, Lafzi A, Eskandari A, Mehrasbi S. A clinical comparison of Cenobone (a decalcified freeze-dried bone allograft) with autogenous bone graft in the treatment of two- and three-wall intrabony periodontal defects: a human study with six-month reentry. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2008; 2: 1-8.
 
11.
Al Qabbani A, Al Kawas S, A Razak NH, Al Bayatti SW, Enezei HH, Samsudin AR, Ab Hamid SS. Three-dimensional radiological assessment of alveolar bone volume preservation using bovine bone xenograft. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29: e203-e209.
 
12.
Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following tooth extraction with and without flap elevation: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 545-549.
 
13.
Hoang TN, Mealey BL. Histologic comparison of healing after ridge preservation using human demineralized bone matrix putty with one versus two different-sized bone particles. J Periodontol 2012; 83: 174-181.
 
14.
Kon K, Shiota M, Ozeki M, Yamashita Y, Kasugai S. Bone augmentation ability of autogenous bone graft particles with different sizes: a histological and micro-computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 1240-1246.
 
15.
Shapoff CA, Bowers GM, Levy B, Mellonig JT, Yukna RA. The effect of particle size on the osteogenic activity of composite grafts of allogeneic freeze-dried bone and autogenous marrow. J Periodontol 1980; 51: 625-630.
 
16.
de Molon RS, Magalhaes-Tunes FS, Semedo CV, Furlan RG, de Souza LGL, de Souza Faloni AP, Marcantonio Jr E, Faeda RS. A randomized clinical trial evaluating maxillary sinus augmentation with different particle sizes of demineralized bovine bone mineral: histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48: 810-823.
 
17.
Weng D, Stock V, Schliephake H. Are socket and ridge preservation techniques at the day of toth extraction efficient in maintaining the tissue of the alveolar ride? Eur J Oral Implantol 2011; 4: 59-66.
 
18.
Chackartchi T, Iezzi G, Goldstein M, Klinger A, Soskolne A, Piattelli A, Shapira L. Sinus floor augmentation using large (1-2 mm) or small (0.25-1 mm) bovine bone mineral particles: a prospective, intra-individual controlled clinical, micro-computerized tomography and histomorphometric study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 473-480.
 
eISSN:2300-6722
ISSN:1899-1874
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top