Differences of bone augmentation in patients with different bone defects by extraction site preservation

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2020.06.012

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To explore the difference of bone augmentation in patients with different bone defects by extraction site preservation. METHODS: From January 2017 to June 2019, 85 patients with dental implants treated in Hefei Second People's Hospital were enrolled and divided into the experimental group (43 cases) and the control group (42 cases) according to random number table method. Patients in the experimental group received extraction site preservation, while patients in the control group underwent routine tooth extraction. The two groups were further divided into one-wall group (remaining one wall of the alveolar socket after surgery), two-wall group (remaining two walls), three-wall group (remaining three wall), and four-wall group (remaining four walls). Postoperative pain, wound healing, and infection were recorded. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed immediately and 6 months after surgery to detect alveolar bone height, bone width, bone width recovery rate, etc. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain between the two groups after 24 hours (P>0.05). All implants healed well after 7 days, and no wound infection or bone infection occurred 6 months after operation. There was no significant difference in buccal bone volume of alveolar ridge (BV) and lingual volume (LV) before surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). BV and LV in the experimental group increased after treatment, and the increase in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall subgroups. BV and LV in the control group decreased, the differences between the subgroups were statistically significant (P<0.05). BV and LV increased in both groups after operation, but significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The increase in bone height in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall groups (P<0.05). Bone width of all subgroups in the experimental group increased, but decreased in the control group. The increase of bone width in the experimental group was significantly different from the control group(P<0.05). In the experimental group, the increase in bone width in one- and two-wall groups was significantly higher than that in three-wall group, and the decrease in bone width in one- and two-wall group in the control group was significantly less than that in three- and four-wall group(P<0.05). The average recovery rate of bone width in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The average recovery rate of bone width in one- and two-wall group in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group(P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the recovery rate from the control group(P>0.05). The change of bone width at 70% of root length in the same group was significantly smaller than that at 50% and 30% of root length (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Extraction site preservation after tooth extraction can relieve alveolar bone resorption and maintain bone mass in contrast to conventional tooth extraction. The smaller the bone defect, the better the bone mass recovery effect.

Key words: Extraction site preservation, Bone defect, Bone augmentation, Alveolar bone

CLC Number:

R782.1

XIONG Ji-wen, ZHOU Wei. Differences of bone augmentation in patients with different bone defects by extraction site preservation[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2020, 29(6): 623-627.

References

[1] 高涵琪, 谭建国, 张磊, 等. 美学区牙列缺损功能和美学重建的多学科联合治疗[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2019, 54(6): 387-390.
[2] Jung RE, Ioannidis A, Hämmerle CHF, et al.Alveolar ridge preservation in the esthetic zone[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2018, 77(l): 165-168.
[3] 吴晓玫, 郭宏铭, 白玉兴, 等. 舌侧矫治拔牙病例上下前牙治疗前后牙槽骨改建的初步研究[J]. 北京口腔医学, 2019, 27(4): 206-210.
[4] Marina F, Lilian M, Ida DA.Management of invasive cervical resorption using a surgical approach followed by an internal approach after 2 months due to pulpal involvement[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2017, 20(3): 214-218.
[5] 滕建平. 口腔种植修复对牙周炎牙列缺损患者种植体质量影响研究[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(12): 2045-2047.
[6] Troiano G, Zhurakivska K, Lo Muzio L, et al.Combination of bone graft and resorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis[J]. J Periodontol, 2018, 89(1): 46-57.
[7] 梁向新, 余晓波, 黄媖. 拔牙位点保存技术对口腔种植患者牙槽美学效果的影响[J]. 广东医学, 2017, 38(23): 3628-3630.
[8] Ma F, Shan B, Wang M, et al.Evaluation of potential of biological material and autogenous chip bone during extraction site (socket) preservation[J]. J Biomater Tiss Eng, 2017, 7(11): 1199-1202.
[9] 蒋瑷, 张强, 罗纬, 等. 上颌单颗前牙位点保存后邻面牙槽嵴高度的早期变化[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2019, 37(4): 394-397.
[10] Uribe-Fentanes LK, Soriano-Padilla F, Raúl Pérez-Frutos J, et al. Action of calendula officinalis essence on bone preservation after the extraction[J]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc, 2018, 56(1): 98-105.
[11] 万绍楠, 杨驰, 浦益萍. 上颌前牙美学区牙槽骨骨量及形态的研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(3): 240-246.
[12] Cavdar FH, Keceli HG, Hatipoglu H, et al.Evaluation of extraction site dimensions and density using computed tomography treated with different graft materials: a preliminary study[J]. Implant Dent, 2017, 26(2): 270-274.
[13] 曾小法, 陈宁, 尹颖. 上颌中切牙微创拔牙即刻种植联合牙龈诱导的美学效果[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2017, 33(12): 1323-1327.
[14] Tu V, Kumar S.Limited evidence suggests that alveolar ridge preservation is more favorable than unassisted socket healing in minimizing alveolar ridge dimensional changes after extraction[J]. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 2018, 18(1): 85-87.
[15] 梁佳越, 王文雪, 金杭颖, 等. 国产牛煅烧骨填充材料用于拔牙窝位点保存及种植骨增量的临床效果评价[J]. 中国医疗设备, 2019, 8(7): 56-59.