Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

A randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial comparing the clinical and histological performance of a new, modified polylactide-co-glycolide acid membrane to an expanded polytetrafluorethylene membrane in guided bone regeneration procedures


Schneider, David; Weber, Franz E; Grunder, Ueli; Andreoni, Claude; Burkhardt, Rino; Jung, Ronald E (2014). A randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial comparing the clinical and histological performance of a new, modified polylactide-co-glycolide acid membrane to an expanded polytetrafluorethylene membrane in guided bone regeneration procedures. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 25(2):150-158.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and histological outcomes of a resorbable modified polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) test membrane and a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) control membrane used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with peri-implant dehiscence-type defects were randomly allocated to a GBR procedure using either a modified PLGA test or an ePTFE control membrane. Soft tissue condition, implant integration, adverse events and quality of life were recorded during the 6-month healing period. At re-entry peri-implant bone defect dimensions were measured and compared with values recorded at implant/GBR surgery. A biopsy was retrieved for qualitative and quantitative histological analyses. A comparison between the groups was conducted using non-parametric statistical tests. RESULTS: Soft tissue complications were observed in five test patients and two control patients. Except for soft tissue complications and incomplete regeneration, no procedure- or device-related adverse events were observed. The vertical bone defect component was, in mean, reduced by-5.1 mm (95% CI -6.8, -3.3) in the test group and -6.9 mm (95% CI -8.2, -5.5 mm) in the control group. The mean residual vertical defect height measured 1.2 ± 2.4 mm in the test group and 0.3 ± 1.1 mm in the control group meaning a mean defect resolution of 81% in the test group and 96% in the control group (P = 0.161). The horizontal bone thickness at implant shoulder level decreased from a mean of 3.2 mm to 1.4 mm (-56%, mean -1.7 mm, 95% CI -2.3, -1.1) in the test group and from 3.3 mm to 2.5 mm (-24%, mean -0.8 mm, 95% CI -1.3, -0.3) in the control group (P = 0.022). Qualitative and quantitative histological analyses did not show significant differences in the tissue composition between groups. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant GBR was successfully performed using either of the membranes. The control membrane was able to better maintain the horizontal thickness of regenerated bone and revealed less soft tissue complications. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one membrane was found in any other parameters. Soft tissue dehiscences occur with both types of membranes and can impair the amount of regenerated bone.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and histological outcomes of a resorbable modified polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) test membrane and a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) control membrane used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with peri-implant dehiscence-type defects were randomly allocated to a GBR procedure using either a modified PLGA test or an ePTFE control membrane. Soft tissue condition, implant integration, adverse events and quality of life were recorded during the 6-month healing period. At re-entry peri-implant bone defect dimensions were measured and compared with values recorded at implant/GBR surgery. A biopsy was retrieved for qualitative and quantitative histological analyses. A comparison between the groups was conducted using non-parametric statistical tests. RESULTS: Soft tissue complications were observed in five test patients and two control patients. Except for soft tissue complications and incomplete regeneration, no procedure- or device-related adverse events were observed. The vertical bone defect component was, in mean, reduced by-5.1 mm (95% CI -6.8, -3.3) in the test group and -6.9 mm (95% CI -8.2, -5.5 mm) in the control group. The mean residual vertical defect height measured 1.2 ± 2.4 mm in the test group and 0.3 ± 1.1 mm in the control group meaning a mean defect resolution of 81% in the test group and 96% in the control group (P = 0.161). The horizontal bone thickness at implant shoulder level decreased from a mean of 3.2 mm to 1.4 mm (-56%, mean -1.7 mm, 95% CI -2.3, -1.1) in the test group and from 3.3 mm to 2.5 mm (-24%, mean -0.8 mm, 95% CI -1.3, -0.3) in the control group (P = 0.022). Qualitative and quantitative histological analyses did not show significant differences in the tissue composition between groups. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant GBR was successfully performed using either of the membranes. The control membrane was able to better maintain the horizontal thickness of regenerated bone and revealed less soft tissue complications. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one membrane was found in any other parameters. Soft tissue dehiscences occur with both types of membranes and can impair the amount of regenerated bone.

Statistics

Citations

16 citations in Web of Science®
20 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

5 downloads since deposited on 20 Aug 2013
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Division of Surgical Research
04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:20 Aug 2013 06:21
Last Modified:06 Oct 2017 14:39
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0905-7161
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12132
PubMed ID:23432666

Download