Comparison of allografts and xenografts used for alveolar ridge preservation. A clinical and histomorphometric RCT in humans

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2017-08, Vol.19 (4), p.608-615
• Main Authors: Serrano Méndez, Carlos Alberto, Lang, Niklaus Peter, Caneva, Martina, Ramírez Lemus, Gloria, Mora Solano, Gerardo, Botticelli, Daniele
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; allograft; Allografts; Allografts - pathology; Alveolar Process - pathology; Alveolar Process - surgery; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; alveolar ridge reconstruction; Animals; bone grafting; Bone grafts; Bone Transplantation - methods; Cancellous bone; Cattle; Collagen; Cortical bone; Demineralizing; Dentistry; Female; Flaps; Grafting; Grafts; Healing; Heterografts - pathology; Humans; Knee; Male; Preservation; Shrinkage; Statistical analysis; Teeth; tooth extraction; xenograft; Xenografts
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12490

Background Several types of bone grafts are used in ridge preservation procedures. Purpose To compare the healing of allografts and xenografts applied for alveolar ridge preservation. Materials and Methods Twenty volunteers in need of extraction of a single‐rooted tooth prior to implant installation were randomized into two groups. One group received a deproteinized cancellous bovine bone xenograft embedded in a 10% collagen matrix and the other a demineralized freeze‐dried cortical bone allograft. A collagen membrane was used to cover the grafts, flaps were sutured. At baseline and 6 months later, clinical measurements including vertical and horizontal bone dimensions were taken. Histomorphometric analysis was performed. Results Both groups showed shrinkage of bone dimensions. At mesial, center and distal sites, the vertical changes in dimension were −0.6, 0.5, and −0.1 mm for the allograft and −1.1, −0.4, and −0.9 mm for the xenograft. The horizontal changes in dimensions were −1.4 mm for the allograft and −2.6 mm for the xenograft. New bone and residual graft material were 25.5 ± 10.1% and 33.8 ± 9.4% at the allograft and 35.3 ± 16.8% and 22.2 ± 13.4% at the xenograft sites. None of the differences was statistically significant. Conclusion Both grafting materials are suitable for the preservation of the alveolar ridge.