Comparison of Injectable Biphasic Calcium Phosphate and a Bovine Xenograft in Socket Preservation: Qualitative and Quantitative Histologic Study in Humans.

Marija Čandrlić,Marko Matijević,Željka Perić Kačarević,Aleksandar Včev,Matej Tomas,Lucija Malešić,Matej Karl

doi:10.3390/ijms23052539

Marija Čandrlić, Marko Matijević + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23052539

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study is the first histologic evaluation of an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration. After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with IBCP (maxresorb® inject) in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received a bovine xenograft (BX) (cerabone®). Six months after augmentation, a reentry procedure was performed to collect biopsies of regenerated bone for qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis. A total of 20 biopsies were taken for analysis. Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone (IBCP: 26.47 ± 14.71%, BX: 30.47 ± 16.39%) and residual biomaterial (IBCP: 13.1 ± 14.07%, BX: 17.89 ± 11.81%), with no significant difference found across groups (p > 0.05, Mann—Whitney U test). Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage (IBCP: 60.43 ± 12.73%, BX: 51.64 ± 14.63%, p = 0.046, Mann—Whitney U test). To conclude, IBCP and BX showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.

Highlights

The basis of Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is the isolation of the bone defect by a physical membrane against the soft tissue to support the growth of the slow-moving osteogenetic cells [5,6]
No inflammatory tissue reaction was observed in either the control or test group, indicating the biocompatibility of the results of soft tissue percentage
Autogenous bone is considered the gold standard, focus is being placed on different graft materials, primarily to avoid the complications associated with the use of autogenous bone

Summary

Introduction

It is known that dental implants are considered the most suitable and comfortable therapeutic option for the replacement of one or more missing teeth [1]. Bone remodeling after tooth extraction does not usually result in restitutio at integrum, which would be ideal for a dental implant placement. The basis of GBR is the isolation of the bone defect by a physical membrane against the soft tissue to support the growth of the slow-moving osteogenetic cells [5,6]. The success of GBR and implant-prosthetic rehabilitation depends on therapeutic clinical skills, and on the proper selection and handling of bone grafting material. It is well known that the gold standard among bone grafts is autogenous bone, but due to complications in its use and limited availability, work is being done to develop alternatives [7,8]. Allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts have emerged as promising alternatives to autogenous bone

Methods

Results

Conclusion