Журнал цитологии и гистологии

Socket Preservation: Allograft vs. Alloplast

Abstract

Mehdi Sezavar, Behnam Bohlouli, Mohammad Hosein Kalantar Motamedi, Jahanfar Jahanbani and Masoud Shah Hosseini

Background: The volume shrinkage of the alveolar ridge might be minimized by the ridge preservation stagesand applied biomaterials, after tooth extraction.
Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare alloplastic with allograft in terms of preservation and bone regeneration of the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction.
Materials and Methods: This study clinically assessed this issue via the Split Mouth method which assessed 10 dental sockets filled with alloplasts and 9 others with allografts postextraction. The effectiveness of each material was clinically and histologically processed. The alveolar ridge width was measured by a gauge, before filling the socket and 2 months postextraction when inserting the dental implant. The histological process of bone samples were observed under light microscope at the time of fixture insertion to evaluate live and dead bone, trabecular, amorphous and non- osteoblastic. The changes in two groups in terms of the quantity underwent T-Test examination and the quality of bone regeneration was assessed using MANN-U-WHITNEY test. IRB and ethical approval was granted for our study.
Results: Minimal reduction of alveolar ridge widths were observed in both groups (reduction of alveolar ridge in the allograft group: 0.61 mm ± 1.06 and in the alloplast group: 0.85 mm ± 0.88) but the difference was not significant statistically (P=0.6); no significant differences were noted in vital (P=0.9), nonvital (P<0.8), trabecular (P<0.7) or amorphous (P<0.4) bone.
Conclusion: Both materials were equal in terms of the quantity and the quality of osteoblasts and both were the same in terms of live and dead bone. No major differences in the regenerated bone could be found between these two groups.