Peri-implant soft and hard tissue condition after alveolar ridge preservation with beta-tricalcium phosphate/type I collagen  in the maxillary esthetic zone: a 1-year follow-up study

Tamara Jurišić; Marija S. Milić; Vladimir S. Todorović; Marko Živković; Milan Jurišić; Aleksandra Milić-Lemić; Ljiljana Tihaček-Šojić; Božidar Brković

doi:10.2298/VSP180128047J

Tamara Jurišić University of Belgrade, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
Marija S. Milić University of Belgrade, Oral Surgery Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia
Vladimir S. Todorović University of Belgrade, Oral Surgery Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia
Marko Živković University of Belgrade, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
Milan Jurišić University of Belgrade, Oral Surgery Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia
Aleksandra Milić-Lemić University of Belgrade, Prosthodontics Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia
Ljiljana Tihaček-Šojić University of Belgrade, Prosthodontics Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia
Božidar Brković University of Belgrade, Oral Surgery Clinic, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP180128047J

Keywords: dental implants, tooth extraction, bone substitutes, calcium phosphates, collagen, maxilla

Abstract

Background/Aim. Alveolar ridge dimensional alterations following tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla often result in an inadequate bone volume for a correct implant placement. In order to obtain optimal bone volume various bone graft substitutes have become commercially available and widely used for socket grafting. The aim of this study was to examine and compare long-term clinical outcomes of dental implant therapy in the maxillary esthetic zone, after socket grafting with beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) combined with collagen type I, either with or without barrier membrane and flap surgery, after a 12-month follow-up. Methods. Twenty healthy patients were allocated to either C group (beta-TCP and type I collagen without mucoperiosteal flap coverage) or C+M group (beta-TCP and type I collagen barrier membrane with mucoperiosteal flap coverage). Following clinical parameters were assessed: implant stability (evaluated by a resonance frequency analysis – RFA), periimplant soft tissue stability (sulcus bleeding index – SBI, Mombelli sulcus bleeding index – MBI, periimplant sulcus depth, keratinized gingiva width, gingival level) and marginal bone level at the retroalveolar radiograms. Results. Within C+M group, RFA values significantly increased 12 weeks after implant installation compared to primary RFA values. Comparison between investigated groups showed a significantly reduced keratinized gingiva width in the C+M group compared to the C group after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Comparison between groups revealed significantly lower gingival level values in the C+M group at 9th and 12th month when compared to the C group. Conclusion. Implant treatment in the anterior maxilla could be effective when using a 9 months alveolar ridge preservation healing with combined treatment with beta-tricalcium phosphate and type I collagen, with regard to the peri-implant soft and hard tissue stability.

References

Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23(4): 313–23.

Chen ST, Buser D. Implants in post-extraction sites - a litera-ture update. In: Buser D, Wismeijer D, Belser U, editors. ITI Treatment Guide. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co, Ltd.; 2004.

Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(2): 212–8.

Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 23 Suppl 5: 1–21.

Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr, Hämmerle CH. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 Suppl: 12–25.

Iasella JM, Greenwell H, Miller RL, Hill M, Drisko C, Bohra AA, et al. Ridge preservation with freeze-dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. J Periodontol 2003; 74(7): 990–9.

Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Stappert CF, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour after dif-ferent socket preservation techniques. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35(10): 906–13.

Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restora-tive Dent 2005; 25(2): 113–9.

Misch CE, Silc JT. Socket grafting and alveolar ridge preserva-tion. Dent Today 2008; 27(10): 146–50.

Heberer S, Al-Chawaf B, Hildebrand D, Nelson JJ, Nelson K. His-tomorphometric analysis of extraction sockets augmented with Bio-Oss Collagen after a 6-week healing period: A pro-spective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(12): 1219–25

Brkovic B, Prasad HS, Konandreas G, Radulovic M, Antunovic D, Sandor GK, et al. Simple preservation of a maxillary extraction socket using betatricalcium phosphate with type I collagen: preliminary clinical and histomorphometric observatuion. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008; 74(6): 523–8.

Darby I, Chen ST, Buser D. Ridge preservation techniques for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 Suppl: 260–71.

Araújo M, Linder E, Lindhe J. Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in extraction sockets: an experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20(1): 1–6.

Vignoletti F, Matesanz P, Rodrigo D, Figuero E, Martin C, Sanz M. Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth ex-traction. A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 Suppl 5: 22–38.

Cordaro L, Torsello F, Miuccio MT, di Torresanto VM, Eliopoulos D. Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross-sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22(11): 1320–6.

Cordaro L, Amade DS, Cordaro M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in par-tially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(1): 103–11.

Nkenke E, Schultze-Mosgau S, Kloss F, Neukam FW, Radespiel-Troger M. Morbidity of harvesting of chin grafts: a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12(5): 495–502.

Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, Califano L, Bufo P, Sbordone L. Volume changes of autogenous bone after sinus lifting and grafting procedures: a 6-year computerized tomographic fol-low-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41(3): 235–41.

von Arx T, Häfliger J, Chappuis V. Neurosensory disturbances following bone harvesting in the symphysis: a prospective clin-ical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16(4): 432–9.

Brkovic BM, Prasad HS, Rohrer MD, Konandreas G, Agrogiannis G, Antunovic D, et al. Beta-tricalcium phosphate/type I colla-gen cones with or without a barrier membrane in human ex-traction socket healing: clinical, histologic, histomorphomet-ric, and immunohistochemical evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16(2): 581–90.

Aludden HC, Mordenfeld A, Hallman M, Dahlin C, Jensen T. Lateral ridge augmentation with Bio-Oss alone or Bio-Oss mixed with particulate autogenous bone graft: a systematic re-view. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46(8): 1030–8.

Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Wüstefeld M, Sager M, Ferrari D, et al. Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(4): 402–15.

Engler-Hamm D, Cheung WS, Yen A, Stark PC, Griffin T. Ridge preservation using a composite bone graft and a bioabsorbable membrane with and without primary wound closure: a com-parative clinical trial. J Periodontol 2011; 82(3): 377–87.

Barone A, Borgia V, Covani U, Ricci M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Flap versus flapless procedure for ridge preservation in alveolar ex-traction sockets: a histological evaluation in a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 26(7): 806–13.

Xin R, Leng Y, Chen J, Zhang Q. A comparative study of calci-um phosphate formation on bioceramics in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 2005; 26(33): 6477–86.

Zerbo IR, Bronckers AL, de Lange GL, Burger EH, van Beek GJ. Histology of human alveolar bone regeneration with a porous tricalcium phosphate. A report of two cases. Clin Oral Im-plants Res 2001; 12(4): 379–84.

Thompson DM, Rohrer MD, Prasad HS. Comparison of bone grafting materials in human extraction sockets: clinical, histo-logic, and histomorphometric evaluations. Implant Dent 2006; 15(1): 89–96.

Artzi Z, Weinreb M, Givol N, Rohrer MD, Nemcovsky CE, Prasad HS, et al. Biomaterial resorption rate and healing site mor-phology of inorganic bovine bone and beta-tricalcium phos-phate in the canine: a 24-month longitudinal histologic study and morphometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 2004 19(3): 357–68.

Zijderveld SA, Zerbo IR, van der Bergh MA, Bruggenkate TC. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a beta-tricalcium phosphate (Cerasorb) alone compared to autogenous bone graft. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20(3): 432–40.

Zou C, Weng W, Deng X, Cheng K, Liu X, Du P, et al. Prepara-tion and characterization of porous -tricalcium phos-phate/collagen composites with an integrated structure. Bio-materials 2005; 26(26): 5276–84.

Farina E, Menditti D, de Maria S, Mezzogiorno A, Esposito V, Laino L, et al. A model of human bone regeneration: morpho-logical, cellular and molecular aspects. J Osseointegration 2009; 1(2): 42–53.

Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U. Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans. A comparison of spontane-ous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24(11): 1231–7.

Mombelli A, Lang NP. Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontol 2000 1994; 4: 81–6.

Sennerby L, Meredith N. Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical as-pects and clinical implications. Periodontology 2000 2008; 47(1): 51–66.

Cochran DL, Bosshardt DD, Grize L, Higginbottom FL, Jones AA, Jung RE, et al. Bone response to loaded implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters in the canine man-dible. J Periodontol 2009; 80(4): 609–17.

Hartman GA, Cochran DL. initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. J Periodontol 2004; 75(4): 572–77.

Peñarrocha MPalomar M, Sanchis JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer J. Ra-diologic study of marginal bone loss arpund 108dental im-plants and its relationshipto smoking, implant location and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19(6): 861–7.

Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of mi-crothread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18(4): 465–70.

Canullo L, Goglia G, Iurlaro G, Ianello G. Short-term bone level observations associated with platform switching in immediate-ly placed and restored single maxillary implants: A preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22(3): 277–82.

Farronato D, Santoro G, Canullo L, Botticelli D, Maiorana C, Lang NP. Establishment of the epithelial attachment and connec-tive tissue adaptation to implants installed under the concept of “platform switching”: a histologic study in minipigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 23(1): 90–4.

Hürzeler M, Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel HC. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments: pre-liminary data from a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65(7 Suppl 1): 33–9.

Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S. Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a random-ized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21(1): 115–21.

Lops D, Bressan E, Parpaiola A, Sbricoli L, Cecchinato D, Romeo E. Soft tissues stability of cad-cam and stock abutments in an-terior regions: 2-year prospective multicentric cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(12): 1436–42.

Cardaropoli G, Lekholm U, Wennstrom JL. Tissue alterations at implant-supported single-tooth replacements: a 1-year pro-spective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(2): 165–71.

Grunder U. Stability of the mucosal topography around single-tooth implants and adjacent teeth: 1-year results. Int J Perio-dontics Restorative Dent 2000; 20(1): 11–7.

Kim BS, Kim YK, Yun PY, Yi YJ, Lee HJ, Kim SG, Son JS. Evaluation of peri-implant tissue response according to the presence of keratinized mucosa. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107(3): e24–8.

Wennström JL, Derks J. Is there a need for keratinized mucosa around implants to maintain health and tissue stability? Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 Suppl 6: 136–46.

Chiu Y, Lee S, Lin Y, Lai Y. Significance of the width of ke-ratinized mucosa on peri-implant health. J Chin Med Assoc 2015; 78(7): 389–94.

Moraschini V, Luz D, Velloso G, Barboza EP. Quality assess-ment of systematic reviews of the significance of keratinized mucosa on implant health. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46(6): 774–81.

Mueller CK, Thorwarth M, Schultze-Mosgau S. Analysis of in-flammatory periimplant lesions during a 12-week period of undisturbed plaque accumulation—a comparison between flapless and flap surgery in the mini-pig. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16(2): 379–85.