A Comparative study of socket preservation between an alloplastic bone substitute material and natural wound healing without bone substitute material : a randomized clinical study

Abstract

Objectives: to compare the healing potential between using alloplastic bone substitute as a socket preservation material and unassisted socket healing. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two healthy patients with single-rooted non-restorable teeth were recruited and randomized into experimental and control group. Minimally traumatic extractions were performed on. Fourteen patients were treated with socket preservation using alloplastic bone substitute(M-bone), while the rest were left to heal naturally. Bone specimens were harvested using trephine bur from the central part of the former alveolar socket after six months. Histomorphometric analysis of the area of new bone formation compared with total socket area was analyzed. Dimensional analysis of dimension change was performed. Results: Mean horizontal mid-buccal ridge thickness change in levels 3 mm. apically to mid bucco-gingival aspect, comparison on baseline was -1.69±0.95 mm in control group and -1.53±0.55 mm. in M-bone group. No statistically significant was found (P=0.584). In the level 5 mm. apically to mid bucco-gingival aspect, mean horizontal mid-buccal ridge thickness change was -1.60±0.81 mm in control group and -1.25±0.55 mm. in M-bone group. No statistically significant was found. (P=0.245). Mean new bone formation were 32.10±14.60% in M-bone group and 49±9.31% in control group, which is statistically significant (P=0.002). Inconclusion, the use of biphasic calcium phosphate alloplastic substitutes(M-bone) in socket preservation shows no statistically significant difference in bone contour but significantly lower new bone formation compared to natural wound healing. (P>0.05) Conclusion: Within the limitation of the study, it may be concluded that the use of biphasic calcium phosphate alloplastic substitutes(M-bone) in socket preservation shows no statistically significant difference in bone contour but significantly lower new bone formation compared to natural wound healing. (P>0.05)