These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Histological comparison of healing extraction sockets implanted with bioactive glass or demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: a pilot study.
    Author: Froum S, Cho SC, Rosenberg E, Rohrer M, Tarnow D.
    Journal: J Periodontol; 2002 Jan; 73(1):94-102. PubMed ID: 11846205.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Various materials have been used immediately following tooth extraction to fill and/or cover the socket in an attempt to limit or prevent ridge resorption. The purpose of the present pilot study was to establish a reliable model to investigate the effect of various bone graft and bone replacement materials on extraction socket healing. This study also compared healing extraction sockets 6 to 8 months postimplantation of a bioactive glass (BG) or demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to an unfilled socket control (C). METHODS: Following tooth extraction, a total of 30 sockets in 19 patients were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups: 10 sockets received BG, 10 sockets DFDBA, and 10 sockets served as unfilled controls. Primary coverage was achieved by flap advancement over each socket. Six to 8 months postextraction at time of implant placement, histological cores of the treatment sites were obtained. These cores were processed, undecalcified sections prepared and stained with Stevenel blue/van Gieson's picric fuchsin, and histomorphometrically analyzed. Vital bone, connective tissue and marrow, and residual graft particles were reported as a percentage of the total core. RESULTS: A model system was described in humans and used to evaluate the healing response in the 3 treatment groups. Results concluded that mean vital bone present was 59.5% for BG-, 34.7% for DFDBA-, and 32.4% for C-treated sites. These differences were not statistically significant. However, the residual implant material was significantly higher in DFDBA-treated (13.5%) versus BG-treated sockets (5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the differences in percent vital bone were not statistically significant among the 3 treatment groups in this pilot study, BG material was observed to act as an osteoconductive material which had a positive effect on socket healing at 6 to 8 months postextraction. Further research following implant placement in treated and control sockets is warranted to determine if bone implant contact is improved in BG-filled versus unfilled sockets.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]