Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: To assess (i) bone regeneration around implants placed early in sites with or without ridge preservation and (ii) if the bone substitute material (DBBM-C) has to be removed at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In eight beagle dogs, three sites were randomly assigned to ridge preservation (DBBM-C plus collagen matrix (CMX)) (two sites; RP) or spontaneous healing (1 site; SH). Four weeks later, in one of the RP sites, dental implants were placed without removing the DBBM-C (RP1), whereas in RP2 and SH sites all non-integrated DBBM-C and/or granulation tissue were removed before implant placement and concomitant GBR. Histomorphometric outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The median buccal fBIC (first bone-to-implant contact) was located more apical in groups RP1: 1.34 mm (0.09; 2.96) and RP2: 1.41 mm (0.54; 2.72) than in group SH: 0.79 mm (0.26; 1.50) (p = 0.452) at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, median buccal fBIC values were for RP1: 0.88 mm (0.00; 2.33), for RP2: 0.16 mm (0.00; 1.33) and for SH: 0.00 mm (0.00; 0.98) (p = 0.362). BIC values increased over 12 weeks in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ridge preservation followed by early implant placement led to higher BIC values at 12 than at 4 weeks. There is no need to remove the biomaterial at implant placement to ensure osseointegration. No relevant differences were observed between the three groups for any outcome measure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thoma et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: