Clinical-radiographic and histological evaluation of two hydroxyapatites in human extraction sockets: a pilot study

• Published in: International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2011-05, Vol.40 (5), p.526-532
• Main Authors: Checchi, V, Savarino, L, Montevecchi, M, Felice, P, Checchi, L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Absorbable Implants; Adult; Aged; Biocompatible Materials - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Biomimetic Materials - therapeutic use; Bone Density - physiology; Bone Matrix - diagnostic imaging; Bone Matrix - pathology; Bone Remodeling - physiology; Bone Resorption - prevention & control; Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use; bone substitution material; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dentistry; Durapatite - therapeutic use; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; hydroxyapatite; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nanoparticles - therapeutic use; Osteogenesis - physiology; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Pilot Projects; Radiography; socket preservation; Surgery; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket - diagnostic imaging; Tooth Socket - pathology; Tooth Socket - surgery
• ISSN: 0901-5027; 1399-0020
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.12.005

Abstract After tooth extraction the healing process involves bone resorption and soft tissue contraction, events that can compromise the ideal implant placement with functional and aesthetic limitations. Following tooth extraction, a socket preservation technique can limit bone resorption. This study evaluated two different types of hydroxyapatite (HA) grafting materials placed into fresh extraction sockets, 6 months after tooth extraction, histologically, clinically and radiographically. Ten extraction sockets from 10 patients were divided in two groups: 5 sockets received a biomimetic HA and 5 received nanocrystalline HA. After 6 months, before implant placement, samples from the grafted area were harvested and evaluated clinically, radiographically and histologically. The percentages of bone, osteoid areas and residual material in the two groups were not statistically different. All samples showed great variability with extensive bone formation and total material resorption or amounts of osteoid tissue that filled the spaces between the residual material particles. The authors did not find any differences between biomimetic and nanocrystalline HA and assume that, within the limits of this study, both these materials could be applied into fresh extraction sockets to limit bone resorption. A control material and a much larger sample size are needed to confirm these findings.