A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Collagen Matrix to Hemostatic Gelatin Sponge as Socket Seal in Alveolar Ridge Preservation
(1) Objectives: This study aimed to compare a collagen matrix to a hemostatic gelatin sponge as a socket seal in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). (2) Methods: Systemically healthy patients planned for ARP at two sites with more than 50% of the buccal bone wall remaining after tooth extraction were eligible for inclusion. ARP involved socket grafting using collagen-enriched deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Sites were then randomly assigned to the test group (collagen matrix) or the control group (hemostatic gelatin sponge). The primary outcome was soft tissue thickness in the center of the site at 4 months, analyzed on cone-beam computed tomography. Secondary outcomes included the buccal and lingual soft tissue heights, horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and Socket Wound Healing Score (SWHS). (3) Results: In total, 18 patients (12 females, 6 males) with a mean age of 57.3 years (SD 11.1) were included. Four months after ARP, the soft tissue thickness in the center of the site amounted to 2.48 mm (SD 0.70) in the test group and 1.81 mm (SD 0.69) in the control group. The difference of 0.67 mm (95% CI: 0.20-1.14) in favor of the collagen matrix was statistically significant (p < 0.009). The buccal soft tissue height was also statistically significantly higher for the collagen matrix (0.72 mm; 95% CI: 0.06-1.38; p = 0.034). A trend favoring the collagen matrix was found for the lingual soft tissue height (p = 0.066). No significant differences between the groups in terms of horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and the SWHS were found. (4) Conclusions: The absence of significant differences in hard tissue outcomes suggests that both the collagen matrix and hemostatic gelatin sponge effectively sealed the extraction socket and supported bone preservation. However, the collagen matrix better maintained soft tissue dimensions. The clinical relevance of this finding with respect to the necessity for adjunctive soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement is yet to be studied.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical medicine - 13(2024), 8 vom: 16. Apr. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Eeckhout, Célien [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Alveolar ridge preservation |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 29.04.2024 published: Electronic Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3390/jcm13082293 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM371624118 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM371624118 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240429232638.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240427s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3390/jcm13082293 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1392.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM371624118 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38673566 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)2293 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Eeckhout, Célien |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Collagen Matrix to Hemostatic Gelatin Sponge as Socket Seal in Alveolar Ridge Preservation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 29.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a (1) Objectives: This study aimed to compare a collagen matrix to a hemostatic gelatin sponge as a socket seal in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). (2) Methods: Systemically healthy patients planned for ARP at two sites with more than 50% of the buccal bone wall remaining after tooth extraction were eligible for inclusion. ARP involved socket grafting using collagen-enriched deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Sites were then randomly assigned to the test group (collagen matrix) or the control group (hemostatic gelatin sponge). The primary outcome was soft tissue thickness in the center of the site at 4 months, analyzed on cone-beam computed tomography. Secondary outcomes included the buccal and lingual soft tissue heights, horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and Socket Wound Healing Score (SWHS). (3) Results: In total, 18 patients (12 females, 6 males) with a mean age of 57.3 years (SD 11.1) were included. Four months after ARP, the soft tissue thickness in the center of the site amounted to 2.48 mm (SD 0.70) in the test group and 1.81 mm (SD 0.69) in the control group. The difference of 0.67 mm (95% CI: 0.20-1.14) in favor of the collagen matrix was statistically significant (p < 0.009). The buccal soft tissue height was also statistically significantly higher for the collagen matrix (0.72 mm; 95% CI: 0.06-1.38; p = 0.034). A trend favoring the collagen matrix was found for the lingual soft tissue height (p = 0.066). No significant differences between the groups in terms of horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and the SWHS were found. (4) Conclusions: The absence of significant differences in hard tissue outcomes suggests that both the collagen matrix and hemostatic gelatin sponge effectively sealed the extraction socket and supported bone preservation. However, the collagen matrix better maintained soft tissue dimensions. The clinical relevance of this finding with respect to the necessity for adjunctive soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement is yet to be studied | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a alveolar ridge preservation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a collagen matrix | |
| 650 | 4 | |a dental implant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gelatin sponge | |
| 650 | 4 | |a socket seal | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Seyssens, Lorenz |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Glibert, Maarten |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Keppens, Laurens |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nollet, Baptist |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lambert, Martijn |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cosyn, Jan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical medicine |d 2012 |g 13(2024), 8 vom: 16. Apr. |w (DE-627)NLM230666310 |x 2077-0383 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2024 |g number:8 |g day:16 |g month:04 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082293 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2024 |e 8 |b 16 |c 04 | ||