Auf unserer Website kommen verschiedene Cookies zum Einsatz: Technisch notwendige Cookies verwenden wir zu dem Zweck, Funktionen wie das Login oder einen Warenkorb zu ermöglichen. Optionale Cookies verwenden wir zu Marketing- und Optimierungszwecken, insbesondere um für Sie relevante und interessante Anzeigen bei den Plattformen von Meta (Facebook, Instagram) zu schalten. Optionale Cookies können Sie ablehnen. Mehr Informationen zur Datenerhebung und -verarbeitung finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
OsteoBiol® is the family of biomaterials produced by Tecnoss® for the dental and maxillo-facial surgeons.In each OsteoBiol® granule, besides its mineral phase, the Tecnoss® process retains the xenogenic collagen phase with its precious biological properties, making it biocompatible and ideal for grafting and augmentation purposes. Avoiding high process temperatures, the OsteoBiol® bone matrix avoids ceramization, maintaining a chemical composition extremely similar to autogenous bone, and therefore gradually resorbable and replaceable by newly formed bone.
Purpose: To evaluate short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of bone regeneration procedures using thin cortical porcine xenogeneic bone plates in combination with autogenous bone chips compared with thin autogenous cortical plates and autogenous bone chips.
Materials and methods: A total of 19 patients (12 women and 7 men, mean age 58.24 ± 3.09 years) were randomly allocated to two different groups regarding surgical procedure: autogenous cortical plates (ACP group) and xenogeneic cortical plates (XCP group). Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing and graft resorption after 4 months, then another surgical procedure was performed to place dental implants. Data were analysed using an analysis of covariance.
Results: Twenty-one surgical procedures were performed on 19 patients (10 from the XCP group and 9 from the ACP group). The operative time was significantly lower in the XCP group (25.45 ± 3.88 minutes) than in the ACP group (44.10 ± 3.60 minutes). The XCP group also showed less pain, but not significantly less, than the ACP group. The graft resorption rate in the ACP and XCP groups was 2.03 ± 1.58% and 3.49 ± 2.38% respectively, showing no statistically significant difference.
Conclusions: Despite the limited sample size and non-uniform distribution between the maxilla and mandible as surgical sites, the results suggest that XCP and ACP grafts are similar in terms of bone volume gain and graft resorption rate, with no significant differences in wound healing or complication rate. Nevertheless, the XCP group recorded lower pain levels and required significantly less operative time compared to the ACP group.
Schlagwörter: autogenous bone, bone regeneration, randomised clinical trial, xenogeneic bone
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest related to this study.