This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. RESULTS: In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION: Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Temmerman et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: