Comparison of dermal matrix and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for socket bone augmentation: a clinical and histologic study.

BACKGROUND: Remodeling and resorption of the alveolar crest, specifically at the buccal aspect, characterize the healing extraction socket. These result in narrowing and shortening of the alveolar ridge, which compromise esthetics and complicate restoration. Alveolar ridge augmentation has been proposed to facilitate future site restoration by minimizing ridge resorption. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare extraction socket healing and alveolar ridge alteration after socket augmentation using bone allograft covered with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane. METHODS: Twenty non-smoking healthy subjects were selected. Each subject required maxillary premolar, canine, or central incisor tooth extraction. The extraction sites were debrided and grafted with a mineralized bone allograft that was covered with an ADM or PTFE membrane. Postoperative appointments were scheduled at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. After 16 weeks of healing, final measurements were performed, and trephine core biopsies were obtained for histomorphometric analysis. Implants were placed immediately after biopsy harvesting. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects completed the study. All sites healed without adverse events and allowed for implant placement. PTFE membranes exfoliated prematurely, with an average retention time of 16.6 days, whereas the ADM membranes appeared to be incorporated into the tissues. Buccal plate thickness loss was 0.44 and 0.3 mm, with a vertical loss of 1.1 and 0.25 mm, for ADM and PTFE, respectively. Bone quality assessment indicated D3 to be the most prevalent (61%). Histomorphometric analysis revealed 41.81% versus 47.36% bone, 58.19% versus 52.64% marrow/fibrous tissue, and 13.93% versus 14.73% particulate graft remaining for ADM and PTFE, respectively. No statistical difference was found between the two treatment groups for any of the parameters. CONCLUSION: All sites evaluated showed minimal ridge alterations, with no statistical difference between the two treatment modalities with respect to bone composition and horizontal and vertical bone loss, indicating that both membranes are suitable for alveolar ridge augmentation.

Sinus augmentation complications: etiology and treatment.

Sinus augmentation, either osteotome or lateral window approach, is a predictable procedure to augment vertical height that allows for proper implant placement in areas with previous limited restorative options. Like any surgical procedures, there is always a risk of encountering either intrasurgical or postsurgical complications. A Medline literature search of articles published from 1984 to 2006 related to complications following sinus augmentation were selected and analyzed. To make it easier for understanding, sinus augmentation complications were classified into following categories: systemic disease and mediations related; anatomy and surgical procedure related; sinus pathology related; infection related; and prosthetic related. Depending on the source or cause of complication, treatment may include palliative approach to surgical intervention. This article will review a newly proposed complication classification, discuss treatment modalities for each encountered complication and propose methods to avoid these complications.

Vertical bone augmentation: where are we now?

As the prevalence of implants has increased, so has the challenge to augment the remaining osseous structure to house those implants. The biggest surgical challenge clinically is to augment lost bone vertically. The purpose of this article is to review currently available techniques for achieving greater vertical dimension before implant placement. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE to find all articles published between 1970 and 2004 regarding vertical bone augmentation. Following the literature search, all articles were reviewed and summarized in this review article of vertical bone augmentation. The results of the research showed that guided-bone regeneration, monocortical onlay grafting, and distraction osteogenesis have the potential to be applied to augment deficient areas vertically. The expectations of dimensional gain and bone quality are unique to each technique, as well as the potential complications. Distraction osteogenesis has had the greatest potential for vertical gain, while guided-bone regeneration and monocortical onlay grafting achieve similar results. The choice of procedure is to be based upon the patient's existing anatomy, degree of vertical deficiency, and willingness to participate in treatment.