Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(02): 477-484
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772251
Original Article

Comparison of Different Techniques in Post-Extractive Socket Regeneration Using Autologous Tooth Graft: Histological and Clinical Outcomes

Elio Minetti
1   Department of Biomedical, Surgical, Dental Science, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
Andrea Palermo
2   College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
,
Marco Berardini 
3   Private Practice, Pescara, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Post-extractive socket grafting techniques reduce alveolar ridge dimensional changes. Numerous graft materials have been suggested and a growing interest in tooth material has been observed as a valuable alternative to synthetic biomaterials or xenografts. Furthermore, different clinical procedures have been proposed for the wound closure of the post-extractive site. This study aims to compare histological and clinical outcomes of two different surgical techniques to seal the post-extractive site with the use of autologous demineralized extracted tooth as graft material.

Materials and Methods Sixteen post-extractive socket without buccal and/or palatal bone walls, in sixteen healthy patients, were grafted with the autologous tooth material treated by the new Tooth Transformer device (Tooth Transformer, Milan, Italy). Alveolar socket preservation procedures were performed without flap elevation. Patients were randomly subdivided into two equal groups according to the site closure technique. In group A, the pedunculate tissue was used, while in group B ice cone technique. A bone samples were collected in each site after 4 months for histological analysis.

Results No significant clinical differences among the different sealing techniques were observed. In both groups, the site was filled by new bone formation after 4 months of healing. The histological analysis revealed 46.1 ± 8.07% of bone volume, 9.2 ± 9.46% of residual graft, and 35.2 ± 12.36% of vital bone in group A, while group B shows 41.22 ± 5.88% of bone volume, 7.94 ± 7.54% of residual graft, and 31.7 ± 7.52% new bone. No statistical differences were detected (p > 0.05).

Conclusion Further studies with a large number of patients, and different observation periods will be needed to confirm the results of this pilot study; however, the interesting data obtained have shown how these techniques, mixed with the autologous dentin derived graft material, seem to promote bone regeneration and reduce physiological bone resorption during alveolar socket preservation treatments.

Keywords

alveolar socket preservation - bone - bone regeneration - demineralized dentin - Tooth Transformer

Ethics Approval Statement

On March 21st, 2019, the University of Chieti Ethics Committee (Italy) authorized the clinical study protocol on a human model registered under the number: 638—21/3/19.


Consent for Publication

The present study was carried out following the principles embodied in the Helsinki Declaration, in its latter form. Patient data were anonymized. Each patient gives a written consent for publication of personal surgical and histological data.


Data Availability Statement

All data and material are available from Prof. Elio Minetti in Milan, Italy.


Authors' Contribution

EM was involved in surgery, data collection, and histologic analysis; AP helped in surgery, data collection, and manuscript preparation; MB contributed to study design and manuscript preparation.




Publication History

Article published online:
20 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Schmitt CM, Doering H, Schmidt T, Lutz R, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA. Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann® BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss®, Puros®, and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (05) 576-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schulhofer SD, Oloff LM. Iliac crest donor site morbidity in foot and ankle surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg 1997; 36 (02) 155-158 , discussion 161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Danesh-Sani SA, Engebretson SP, Janal MN. Histomorphometric results of different grafting materials and effect of healing time on bone maturation after sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 2017; 52 (03) 301-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Signorini L, Inchingolo AD, Santacroce L. et al. Efficacy of combined sea salt based oral rinse with xylitol in improving healing process and oral hygiene among diabetic population after oral surgery. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2020; 34 (04) 1617-1622
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cantore S, Inchingolo AD, Xhajanka E. et al. Management of patients suffering from xerostomia with a combined mouthrinse containing sea salt, xylitol and lysozyme. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2020; 34 (04) 1607-1611
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M. Detection of alkaline and acid phosphatases around titanium implants: a light microscopical and histochemical study in rabbits. Biomaterials 1995; 16 (17) 1333-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chappuis V, Araújo MG, Buser D. Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 73-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (Suppl. 21) 195-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36 (12) 1048-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 García-Gareta E, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW. Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone 2015; 81: 112-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yeomans JD, Urist MR. Bone induction by decalcified dentine implanted into oral, osseous and muscle tissues. Arch Oral Biol 1967; 12 (08) 999-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bang G, Urist MR. Bone induction in excavation chambers in matrix of decalcified dentin. Arch Surg 1967; 94 (06) 781-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bessho K, Tanaka N, Matsumoto J, Tagawa T, Murata M. Human dentin-matrix-derived bone morphogenetic protein. J Dent Res 1991; 70 (03) 171-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Goldberg M, Kulkarni AB, Young M, Boskey A. Dentin: structure, composition and mineralization. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 2011; 3 (02) 711-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Minetti E, Giacometti E, Gambardella U. et al. Alveolar socket preservation with different autologous graft materials: preliminary results of a multicenter pilot study in human. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (05) 1153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Minetti E, Celko M, Contessi M. et al. Implants survival rate in regenerated sites with innovative graft biomaterials: 1 year follow-up. Materials (Basel) 2021; 14 (18) 5292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Minetti E, Berardini M, Trisi P. A new tooth processing apparatus allowing to obtain dentin grafts for bone augmentation: the tooth transformer. Open Dent J 2019; 13: 6-14
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Elian N, Cho SC, Froum S, Smith RB, Tarnow DP. A simplified socket classification and repair technique. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2007; 19 (02) 99-104 , quiz 106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chu SJ, Sarnachiaro GO, Hochman MN, Tarnow DP. Subclassification and clinical management of extraction sockets with labial dentoalveolar dehiscence defects. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015; 36 (07) 516 , 518–520, 522 passim
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310 (20) 2191-2194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Caiazzo A, Canullo L, Pesce P. Consensus Meeting Group. Consensus report by the italian academy of osseointegration on the use of antibiotics and antiseptic agents in implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 36 (01) 103-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Canullo L, Troiano G, Sbricoli L. et al. The use of antibiotics in implant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis on early implant failure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35 (03) 485-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pesce P, Mijiritsky E, Canullo L. et al. An analysis of different techniques used to seal post-extractive sites-a preliminary report. Dent J 2022; 10 (10) 189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Minetti E, Casasco A, Casasco M. et al Bone Regeneration in Implantology: Tooth as a Graft. Milano, Italy: EDRA s.p.A; 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Bonine FL. Effect of chlorhexidine rinse on the incidence of dry socket in impacted mandibular third molar extraction sites. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 79 (02) 154-157 , discussion 157–158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Raes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Clinical, aesthetic, and patient-related outcome of immediately loaded single implants in the anterior maxilla: a prospective study in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15 (06) 819-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cehreli MC, Uysal S, Akca K. Marginal bone level changes and prosthetic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 2 implants: a 5-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12 (02) 114-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gulati M, Govila V, Anand V, Anand B. Implant maintenance: a clinical update. Int Sch Res Notices 2014; 2014: 908534
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Menini M, Setti P, Pera P, Pera F, Pesce P. Peri-implant tissue health and bone resorption in patients with immediately loaded, implant-supported, full-arch prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31 (04) 327-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 MacBeth N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Donos N, Mardas N. Hard and soft tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (08) 982-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Siddiqui JA, Partridge NC. Physiological bone remodeling: systemic regulation and growth factor involvement. Physiology (Bethesda) 2016; 31 (03) 233-245
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Duncan W, Faggion CM, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015 (05) CD010176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Corbella S, Taschieri S, Francetti L, Weinstein R, Del Fabbro M. Histomorphometric results after postextraction socket healing with different biomaterials: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (05) 1001-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 MacBeth ND, Donos N, Mardas N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single-blind controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022; 33 (07) 681-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Y Baena R R, Lupi SM, Pastorino R, Maiorana C, Lucchese A, Rizzo S. Radiographic evaluation of regenerated bone following poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid/hydroxyapatite and deproteinized bovine bone graft in sinus lifting. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24 (03) 845-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sivolella S, Botticelli D, Prasad S, Ricci S, Bressan E, Prasad H. Evaluation and comparison of histologic changes and implant survival in extraction sites immediately grafted with two different xenografts: a randomized clinical pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (09) 825-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Varshney S, Dwivedi A, Pandey V. Efficacy of autologous stem cells for bone regeneration during endosseous dental implants insertion - a systematic review of human studies. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020; 10 (04) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Misch CM. Maxillary autogenous bone grafting. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011; 23 (02) 229-238 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Vittorini Orgeas G, Clementini M, De Risi V, de Sanctis M. Surgical techniques for alveolar socket preservation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28 (04) 1049-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 von Arx T, Hardt N, Wallkamm B. The TIME technique: a new method for localized alveolar ridge augmentation prior to placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11 (03) 387-394
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Al-Moraissi EA, Alkhutari AS, Abotaleb B. et al. Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 19: 31163-31164
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Mulyawan I, Danudiningrat CP, Soesilawati P. et al. The characteristics of demineralized dentin material sponge as guided bone regeneration based on the FTIR and SEM-EDX tests. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (04) 880-885
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Zhang S, Li X, Qi Y. et al. Comparison of autogenous tooth materials and other bone grafts. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2021; 18 (03) 327-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Umebayashi M, Ohba S, Kurogi T, Noda S, Asahina I. Full regeneration of maxillary alveolar bone using autogenous partially demineralized dentin matrix and particulate cancellous bone and marrow for implant-supported full arch rehabilitation. J Oral Implantol 2020; 46 (02) 122-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Yüceer-Çetiner E, Özkan N, Önger ME. Effect of autogenous dentin graft on new bone formation. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32 (04) 1354-1360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hashemi S, Tabatabaei S, Fathi A, Asadinejad SM, Atash R. Tooth graft: an umbrella overview. Eur J Dent 2023; DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764420.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Minetti E, Corbella S, Taschieri S, Canullo L. Tooth as graft material: histologic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2022; 24 (04) 488-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Moreno Rodríguez JA, Ortiz Ruiz AJ. Periodontal granulation tissue preservation in surgical periodontal disease treatment: a pilot prospective cohort study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2022; 52 (04) 298-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar