A Histologic and Histomorphometric Evaluation of an Allograft, Xenograft, and Alloplast Graft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Humans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Eirini Zampara, Mukhlid Alshammari, Joao De Bortoli, Otto Mullings, Ioannis G. Gkisakis, Ernesto B. Benalcázar Jalkh, Nick Tovar, Paulo G. Coelho, Lukasz Witek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the guided bone regeneration (GBR) potential of allograft, xenograft, and alloplastic materials in combination with resorbable membranes in extraction sockets. The qualitative and quantitative assessments of this prospective study were accomplished through histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Three experimental groups and 1 control group for comparison (n = 8) received either an allograft (human cancellous bone, freeze dried, Deutsches Institut für Zell und Gewebeersatz, Berlin, Germany), xenograft (BioOss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland), or alloplast (biphasic calcium sulphate, Bondbone, MIS Implants Technologies Ltd., Charlotte, NC). The negative control group received no regenerative material. Tissue samples were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated as a function of percentage of new vital bone, graft particles content, soft tissue, and bone marrow over time. All 3 study groups presented bone volume suitable for the successful placement of a dental implant. The xenograft group yielded significantly less amount of vital bone compared with the allograft and alloplast groups. When comparing the percentage of residual graft particles, there was significantly greater amounts associated with the xenograft group in contrast to the allograft and alloplast groups. Similarly, a significantly increased amount of soft tissue percentage was observed within the xenograft group relative to all other groups. No significant differences were observed in the percentage of residual graft particles between the allograft and alloplast groups. There were also no significant differences detected in vital bone percentage between the allograft, alloplast, and control groups. When evaluating the bone marrow percentage, the only significant difference detected was between the xenograft and alloplast materials. Overall, no complications (ie, fever, malaise, purulence or fistula) were observed during the entirety of clinical trial among all patients. The greatest GBR potential was associated with the allograft material because of the greater degree of vital bone and the lowest percentage of residual graft particles. All studied bone substitute materials resulted in bone apposition for efficient use in alveolar ridge preservation procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)541-549
Number of pages9
JournalThe Journal of oral implantology
Volume48
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2022

Keywords

  • allograft
  • alloplast
  • alveolar ridge preservation
  • biphasic calcium sulphate
  • bone grafts
  • histomorphometry
  • xenograft

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Histologic and Histomorphometric Evaluation of an Allograft, Xenograft, and Alloplast Graft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Humans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this