Outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation using a collagenated bovine bone xenograft: A randomized controlled trial.

backgroundConventional bone augmentation for dental implants typically involves particulate grafting materials, with the addition of barrier membranes, to preserve ridge dimensions. This study compares the changes in horizontal ridge width in patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with a collagenated bovine bone xenograft (BG), with and without a non-crosslinked collagen membrane (MEM).

methodsA 6-month randomized clinical trial was conducted with 20 participants requiring ARP after tooth extraction. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Group 1, which received BG alone, and Group 2, which received BG + MEM. Both groups were allowed to heal by secondary intention. The outcomes of interest included clinical, radiographic, and ultrasonographic changes in hard and soft tissues and histologic and histomorphometric evidence of new bone formation.

resultsAll enrolled participants completed the study, with a mean age of 54.25 ± 17.08 years, including 17 premolars, 1 canine, and 2 incisors. The baseline buccal bone thickness was similar between the groups (group 1: 1.02 ± 0.44 mm; group 2: 0.93 ± 0.45 mm; p = 0.662). At 6 months, no significant differences were observed between the groups for keratinized tissue width (group 1: 4.80 ± 1.48 mm; group 2: 4.80 ± 1.14 mm; p = 0.999), gingival thickness (group 1: 1.22 ± 0.25 mm; group 2: 1.20 ± 0.35 mm; p = 0.650), horizontal bone width at 3 mm from the crest (group 1: 9.02 ± 2.09 mm; group 2: 8.41 ± 1.45 mm; p = 0.464), and change in vertical bone at the buccal aspect (group 1: ∆ -0.78 ± 0.59 mm; group 2: ∆ -1.31 ± 1.20 mm; p = 0.244). Ultrasound evaluations were consistent with clinical measurements. Histologic analysis showed similar new bone formation between groups (group 1: 25.80% ± 15.48%; group 2: 27.89% ± 18.21%; p = 0.803).

conclusionThe collagenated bone graft alone yielded comparable outcomes to its combination with a collagen membrane in areas with thick buccal bone, simplifying the treatment process by reducing costs, time, and the need for additional materials.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; Registration Number NCT05838651. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study compared two methods for socket preservation after tooth extraction: one with a bone graft plug alone, and the other with the bone graft plug plus a collagen membrane. Twenty study participants were followed for 6 months after treatment. The hard and soft tissue changes were assessed by clinical, radiographic, ultrasound, and biopsy analyses. Both treatments demonstrated positive results, including stable ridge height and width, new bone formation, and healthy soft tissue healing. The results showed that using only the plug was just as effective as using the plug with the membrane in promoting bone regeneration. This simple approach reduces the need for additional materials, saving time and costs while achieving similar outcomes.