ABSTRACT
(1) Background: Use of Terra-Cortril may reduce pain and discomfort after tooth extraction. It is widely used among dentists, especially for third molar extraction and for treatment of dry socket. Only few case reports described unsuccessful healing with formation of myospherulosis. (2) Aim: The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the occurrence of unsuccessful healing between extraction sockets locally treated with Terra-Cortril (TC) (exposure cohort) and extraction sockets subjected to unassisted healing (non-exposure cohort). The assessment of the three-dimensional morphology of the bone was a secondary objective. (3) Material and methods: The records of patients who had one or more extractions between 1 January 2020 and 1 July 2021 followed by implant placement in one private practice were retrieved and data were extracted. At the time of implant placement, practitioners established, both clinically and radiographically, if the healing was successful or unsuccessful. Explanatory demographic as well as clinical variables were extracted from patient files, checked and supplemented by contacting patients in cases of missing data. (4) Results: 69 patients were included who had, in total, 99 extractions. The exposure cohort included 55 sites, while the non-exposure cohort included 44 sites. A total of 56 sites demonstrated successful healing, and 53 showed unsuccessful healing. The regression model identified TC as a significant predictor (p = 0.014) for unsuccessful healing with an odds ratio of 2.86. Sites treated with Terra-Cortril had a significantly greater bone defect at level -1 mm, level -3 mm, and level -5 mm from the bone crest, and significantly greater maximal vertical and horizontal bone defects. At sites where Terra-Cortril was used, significantly more surgical consequences were reported (70.91% vs. 18.18%, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: fresh extraction sockets treated with Terra-Cortril increased the likelihood of unsuccessful healing with an odds ratio of 2.86. The greater defect size leads to significantly more limitations when planning implants at sites previously treated with TC.
ABSTRACT
(1) Aim: a cross-linked porcine-derived collagen matrix (CMX) has been developed for soft tissue augmentation. Although this grafting material does not require a second surgical site, recent findings have indicated deeper pockets, more marginal bone loss and more midfacial recession in the short term when compared to connective tissue graft (CTG). Hence, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of CMX based on buccal bone loss over a one-year period. (2) Methods: Patients who were missing a single tooth in the anterior maxilla were included, in whom the failing tooth had been removed at least 3 months prior and who presented a horizontal mucosa defect. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm as assessed on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone. All patients received a single implant and an immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. All surgeries were performed by means of full thickness mucoperiosteal flap elevation, placing CTG and CMX in contact with the buccal bone wall. Safety was assessed by evaluating the impact of CTG and CMX on buccal bone loss over a one-year period using superimposed CBCT scans. (3) Results: thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48) and 51 (control: 25; test: 26) could be analyzed for buccal bone loss. At 1 mm apical to the implant-abutment interface (IAI), most horizontal resorption was found pointing to 0.44 mm in the control group and 0.59 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.14 mm (95% CI: -0.17-0.46) was not statistically significant (p = 0.366). At 3 mm and 5 mm apical to the IAI, the difference between the groups was 0.18 mm (95% CI: -0.05-0.40; p = 0.128) and 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.24-0.28; p = 0.899), respectively. Vertical buccal bone loss amounted to 1.12 mm in the control group and 1.14 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.53-0.49) was not statistically significant (p = 0.926). (4) Conclusions: In the short term, soft tissue augmentation with CTG or CMX results in limited buccal bone loss. CMX is a safe alternative to CTG. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of soft tissue augmentation on buccal bone.
