Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 4/2021

01-04-2021 | Original Article

Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation

Authors: Riccardo Di Raimondo, Javier Sanz-Esporrín, Ignacio Sanz-Martin, Rafael Plá, Fernando Luengo, Fabio Vignoletti, Javier Nuñez, Mariano Sanz

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the contour and volumetric changes of hard and soft tissues after guided bone regeneration (GBR) using two types of barrier membranes together with a xenogeneic bone substitute in dehiscence-type defects around dental implants.

Material and methods

In 8 Beagle dogs, after tooth extraction, two-wall chronified bone defects were developed. Then, implants were placed with a buccal dehiscence defect that was treated with GBR using randomly: (i) deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) covered by a synthetic polylactic membrane (test group), (ii) DBBM plus a porcine natural collagen membrane (positive control) and (iii) defect only covered by the synthetic membrane (negative control group). Outcomes were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. Micro-CT was used to evaluate the hard tissue volumetric changes and STL files from digitized cast models were used to measure the soft tissues contour linear changes.

Results

Test and positive control groups were superior in terms of volume gain and contour changes when compared with the negative control. Soft tissue changes showed at 4 weeks statistically significant superiority for test and positive control groups compared with negative control. After 12 weeks, the results were superior for test and positive control groups but not statistically significant, although, with a lesser magnitude, the negative control group exhibited gains in both, soft and hard tissues.

Conclusions

Both types of membranes (collagen and synthetic) attained similar outcomes, in terms of hard tissue volume gain and soft tissue contours when used in combination with DBBM

Clinical relevance

Synthetic membranes were a valid alternative to the “gold standard” natural collagen membrane for treating dehiscence-type defects around dental implants when used with a xenogeneic bone substitute scaffold
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hammerle CHF, Tarnow D (2018) The etiology of hard and soft tissue deficiencies at dental implants: a narrative review. J Clin Periodontol 45(Suppl 20):S267–S277CrossRef
2.
Araujo MG, Lindhe J (2005) Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:212–218CrossRef
3.
Tan WL, Wong TLT, Wong MCM, Lang NP (2012) A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(Suppl. 5):1–21CrossRef
4.
Moraschini V, Poubel LC, Ferreira V, dos Sp Barboza E (2015) Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:377–388CrossRef
5.
Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Baffone G, Lang NP, Botticelli D (2010) Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:43–49CrossRef
6.
Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M (2005) Influence of 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:113–119PubMed
7.
Benic GI, Hämmerle CHF (2014) Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 66:13–40CrossRef
8.
Sanz-Sánchez I, Carrillo de Albornoz A, Figuero E, Schwarz F, Jung R, Sanz M, Thoma D (2018) Effects of lateral bone augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(Suppl. 15):18–31CrossRef
9.
Sanz M, Dahlin C, Apatzidou D et al (2019) Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):82–91CrossRef
10.
Haugen HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Rossi F, Perale G (2019) Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial? J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):92–102CrossRef
11.
Sanz M, Vignoletti F (2015) Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dent Mater 31:640–647CrossRef
12.
Thoma DS, Bienz SP, Figuero E, Jung RE, Sanz-Martín I (2019) Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation performed simultaneously with dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):257–276CrossRef
13.
Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S (1988) Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672–676CrossRef
14.
Omar O, Elgali I, Dahlin C, Thomsen P (2019) Barrier membranes: more than the barrier effect? J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):103–123CrossRef
15.
Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Scharer P (1997) Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12(6):844–852PubMed
16.
Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D (1994) A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14:167–180
17.
Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Becker J (2006) Angiogenesis pattern of native and cross-linked collagen membranes: an immunohistochemical study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:403–409CrossRef
18.
Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Ferrari D, Becker J (2008) Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:402–415CrossRef
19.
Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Becker J (2005) Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:369–378CrossRef
20.
Gentile P, Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C, Ferreira AM, Ciardelli G (2011) Polymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration. Biotechnol J 6(10):1187–1197CrossRef
21.
Gottlow J, Laurell L, Lundgren D, Mathisen T, Nyman S, Rylander H, Bogentoff C (1994) Periodontal tissue response to a new bioresorbable guided tissue regeneration device: a longitudinal study in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14:437–449
22.
Lundgren D, Laurell L, Gottlow J, Rylander H, Torbjörn M, Nyman S, Rask M (1995) The influence of the design of two different bioresorbable barriers on the results of guided tissue regeneration therapy. An intra-individual comparative study in the monkey. J Periodontol 66:605–612CrossRef
23.
Matsumoto G, Hoshino J, Kinoshita Y, Sugita Y, Kubo K, Maeda H, Ikada Y, Kinoshita Y (2012) Alveolar bone regeneration using poly-(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid-co-e-caprolactone) porous membrane with collagen sponge containing basic fibroblast growth factor: an experimental study in the dog. J Biomater Appl 27(4):485–493CrossRef
24.
Won JY, Park CY, Bae JH, Ahn G, Kim C, Lim DH, Cho DW, Yun WS, Shim JH (2016) Evaluation of 3D printed PCL/PLGA/-TCP versus collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration in a beagle implant model. Biomed Mater 11(5):055013CrossRef
25.
Sanz-Martın I, Sailer I, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS (2016) Soft tissue stability and volumetric changes after 5 years in pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:969–974CrossRef
26.
Sanz-Martin I, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, Nunez J, Baldini N, Duvina M, Alcaraz J, Sanz M (2017) Contour changes after guided bone regeneration of large non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a porcine-derived collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig 22(3):1273–1283CrossRef
27.
Sanz Martin I, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Permuy M, Muñoz F, Sanz-Esporrin J, Fierravanti L, Shapira L, Sanz M (2017) Hard and soft tissue integration of immediate and delayed implants with a modified coronal macro design: histological, micro CT and volumetric soft tissue changes from a pre-clinical in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 44(8):842–853CrossRef
28.
Basler T, Naenni N, Schneider D, Hammerle CHF, Jung R, Thoma DS (2018) Randomized controlled clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(5):499–507CrossRef
29.
Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Pla R, Sanz-Martin I, Luengo F, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Sanz M (2019) Alveolar crests contour changes after guided bone regeneration using different biomaterials: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00784-019-03092-8
30.
Khobragade P, Jain A, Setlur Nagesh SV, Andreana S, Dziak R, Sunkara SK, Ionita CN (2015) Micro-computed tomography (CT) based assessment of dental regenerative therapy in the canine mandible model. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 17:9417
31.
Baek YJ, Kim JH, Song JM, Zoon SY, Kim HS, Shin SH (2016) Chitin-fibroin-hydroxyapatite membrane for guided bone regeneration: micro-computed tomography evaluation in a rat model. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 38(1):14CrossRef
32.
Vignoletti F, Abrahamsson I (2012) Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. J Clin Periodontol 39(Suppl. 12):6–27CrossRef
33.
Song JM, Shin SH, Kim YD, Lee JY, Baek YJ, Yoon SY, Kim HS (2014) Comparative study of chitosan/fibroin–hydroxyapatite and collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration in rat calvarial defects: micro-computed tomography analysis. Int J Oral Sci 6(2):87–93CrossRef
34.
Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T (2017) Guided bone regeneration of non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1466–1476CrossRef
35.
Hoornaert A, d’Arros C, Heymann MF, Layrolle P (2016) Biocompatibility, resorption and biofunctionality of a new synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration. Biomed Mater 11(4):045012CrossRef
36.
Lundgren D, Sennerby L, Falk H, Friberg B, Nyman S (1994) The use of a new bioresorbable barrier for guided bone regeneration in connection with implant installation. Case reports. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:177–184CrossRef
37.
Thoma DS, Jung U-W, Park J-Y, Bienz SP, Husler J, Jung RE (2017) Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix versus standard guided bone regeneration techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:e76–e83CrossRef
38.
Jung UW, Cha JK, Vignoletti F, Nunez J, Sanz J, Sanz M (2017) Simultaneous lateral bone augmentation and implant placement using a particulated synthetic bone substitute around chronic peri-implant dehiscence defects in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 44:1172–1180CrossRef
39.
Bienz SP, Jung RE, Sapata VM, Hammerle CHF, Husler J, Thoma DS (2017) Volumetric changes and peri-implant health at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting in the esthetic zone, a retrospective case-control study with a 5-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1459–1465CrossRef
40.
Antunes AA, Grossi-Oliveira GA, Martins-Neto EC, Almeida AL, Salata LA (2015) Treatment of circumferential defects with osseoconductive xenografts of different porosities: a histological, histometric, resonance frequency analysis, and micro-CT study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 1):e202–e220CrossRef
41.
Sanz-Martin I, Permuy M, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Muñoz F, Sanz M (2018) A novel methodological approach using superimposed micro-CT and STL images to analyze hard and soft tissue volume in immediate and delayed implants with different cervical designs. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:986–995CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation
Authors
Riccardo Di Raimondo
Javier Sanz-Esporrín
Ignacio Sanz-Martin
Rafael Plá
Fernando Luengo
Fabio Vignoletti
Javier Nuñez
Mariano Sanz
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Clinical Oral Investigations 4/2021 Go to the issue

Original Article

The impact of 3D-printed LAY-FOMM 40 and LAY-FOMM 60 on L929 cells and human oral fibroblasts

Original Article

Validation of the Chinese version of the Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ)

Original Article

Effect of endodontic treatment on periodontal healing of grade 3 endo-periodontal lesions without root damage in periodontally compromised patients—a retrospective pilot study

Original Article

A case-control study of oral diseases and quality of life in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus

Original Article

Biological and technical complications in root cap–retained overdentures after 3–15 years in situ: a retrospective clinical study

Original Article

“Comparative study of conventional anesthesia technique versus computerized system anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial”