Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Randomized, controlled clinical two-centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 or autogenous bone blocks for lateral ridge augmentation


Thoma, Daniel S; Payer, Michael; Jakse, Norbert; Bienz, Stefan P; Hüsler, Jürg; Schmidlin, Patrick R; Jung, Ui-Won; Hämmerle, Christoph H F; Jung, Ronald E (2018). Randomized, controlled clinical two-centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 or autogenous bone blocks for lateral ridge augmentation. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 45(2):265-276.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not the use of a xenogeneic block loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) results in different bone quantity and quality compared to an autogenous bone block. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-four patients with insufficient bone volume for implant placement were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: a xenogeneic bone block loaded with rhBMP-2 (test) and an autogenous bone block (control). The horizontal ridge width was evaluated prior to augmentation, after augmentation and at 4 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at suture removal and at 4 months. Biopsies were obtained at 4 months and histologically evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were tested by a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, intra-group comparisons were performed with Wilcoxon-signed rank test, and all categorical variables were tested with Chi-squared tests. RESULTS One autogenous bone block failed. This patient was replaced, and in all subsequently treated 24 patients, implant placement was possible 4 months later. The median ridge width increased from 4.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 4.0) (test) and 2.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 3.0) (control) to 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (test) and 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (control) at 4 months (intergroup p > .05). A higher morbidity was reported at the augmented site in the control group during surgery. Sensitivity was more favourable in the test than that in the control group at 4 months. The biopsies revealed more mineralized tissue in the control group (p < .0043). CONCLUSIONS Both treatment modalities were successful in regenerating bone to place dental implants. PROMs did not reveal any significant differences between the groups except for pain during surgery at the recipient site (in favour of the test group). Histologically, a higher amount of mineralized tissue was observed for the control group at 4 months.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not the use of a xenogeneic block loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) results in different bone quantity and quality compared to an autogenous bone block. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-four patients with insufficient bone volume for implant placement were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: a xenogeneic bone block loaded with rhBMP-2 (test) and an autogenous bone block (control). The horizontal ridge width was evaluated prior to augmentation, after augmentation and at 4 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at suture removal and at 4 months. Biopsies were obtained at 4 months and histologically evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were tested by a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, intra-group comparisons were performed with Wilcoxon-signed rank test, and all categorical variables were tested with Chi-squared tests. RESULTS One autogenous bone block failed. This patient was replaced, and in all subsequently treated 24 patients, implant placement was possible 4 months later. The median ridge width increased from 4.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 4.0) (test) and 2.0 mm (Q1 = 2.0; Q3 = 3.0) (control) to 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (test) and 7.0 mm (Q1 = 6.0; Q3 = 8.0) (control) at 4 months (intergroup p > .05). A higher morbidity was reported at the augmented site in the control group during surgery. Sensitivity was more favourable in the test than that in the control group at 4 months. The biopsies revealed more mineralized tissue in the control group (p < .0043). CONCLUSIONS Both treatment modalities were successful in regenerating bone to place dental implants. PROMs did not reveal any significant differences between the groups except for pain during surgery at the recipient site (in favour of the test group). Histologically, a higher amount of mineralized tissue was observed for the control group at 4 months.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 12 Jan 2018
3 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:February 2018
Deposited On:12 Jan 2018 11:43
Last Modified:20 Feb 2018 09:01
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0303-6979
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12841
PubMed ID:29150957

Download