Guided Bone Regeneration for Dehiscence and Fenestration Defects on Implants Using an Absorbable Polymer Barrier

Background: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) using a non‐absorbable barrier has provided clinicians the ability to place implants in sites compromised by insufficient bone, including immediate extraction sites. Recent evidence suggests that successful GBR outcomes may be possible using bioabsorbable p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2001-02, Vol.72 (2), p.250-256
Main Authors: Rosen, Paul S., Reynolds, Mark A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Absorbable Implants
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy
Bone Resorption - surgery
Bone Transplantation - methods
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental Implants
Dentistry
Female
Follow-Up Studies
grafts, bone
Guided bone regeneration
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal
Humans
Jaw Diseases - surgery
Male
Membranes, Artificial
membranes, barrier
membranes, bioabsorbable
Middle Aged
Osteogenesis - physiology
Polyesters
polylactic acid/therapeutic use
Tissue Preservation
Transplantation, Homologous
Wound Healing - physiology
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) using a non‐absorbable barrier has provided clinicians the ability to place implants in sites compromised by insufficient bone, including immediate extraction sites. Recent evidence suggests that successful GBR outcomes may be possible using bioabsorbable polymer barriers. Methods: This report presents a case series of 9 patients with 8 fenestration and 3 dehiscence defects on implants consecutively treated with GBR. A bioabsorbable polymer barrier of poly(DL‐lactide) was used in conjunction with a composite graft of freeze‐dried bone allograft (FDBA)/demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA) mixed in a ratio of 1:1. Secondstage surgeries were performed at 4 to 8.5 months (5.7 months average) post‐placement. Biopsy material from 2 sites was obtained while exposing the implant for healing abutment connection. Results: Ten of the 11 defects (90.9%) achieved complete coverage of the osseous defects. Histologic evaluations revealed the formation of viable bone, frequently in close amalgamation with residual graft particles. Conclusion: These case reports suggest that a poly(DL‐lactide) polymer can be used as a physical barrier with a composite bone replacement graft to achieve successful GBR results of dehiscence/fenestration defects when placing implants. J Periodontol 2001;72:250‐256.
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2001.72.2.250