Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 May;26(5):529-36. doi: 10.1111/clr.12437. Epub 2014 Jun 26.

Bone loss after ridge expansion with or without reflection of the periosteum.

Author information

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; Center of Implantology, Periodontology and 3D Head- and Neck Diagnostics, Konstanz, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the role of the periosteum in preserving the buccal bone after ridge splitting and expansion with simultaneous implant placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

In 12 miniature pigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were removed together with the interdental bone septa and the buccal bone. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion of the buccal plate was performed with simultaneous placement of two titanium implants per quadrant. Access by a mucosal flap (MF) was prepared on test sides, while a mucoperiosteal flap (MPF) with complete denudation of the buccal bone was increased on control sides. After healing periods of six and 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed for histologic and histometric evaluation.

RESULTS:

In the MF group, all 16 implants were osseointegrated, while in the MPF group, four of 16 implants were lost. Noticeable differences of bone levels on the implant surface and of the bone crest (BC) were found between the MF and the MPF group. Buccally after 6 weeks, the median distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and the coronal-most bone on the implant (cBIC) was for the MF group -1.42 ± 0.42 mm and for the MPF group -4.80 ± 2.72 mm (P = 0.15). The median distance between the IS and the buccal BC was -1.24 ± 0.51 mm and -2.78 ± 1.98 mm (P = 0.12) for the MF and MPF group, respectively. After 12 weeks, median IS-cBIC was -2.12 ± 0.84 mm for MF and -7.19 mm for MPF, while IS-BC was -2.08 ± 0.79 mm for MF and -5.96 mm for MPF. After 6 weeks, the median buccal bone thickness for MF and MPF was 0.01 and 0 mm (P < 0.001) at IS, 1.48 ± 0.97 mm and 0 ± 0.77 mm (P = 0.07) at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.12 ± 1.19 mm and 1.72 ± 01.50 mm (P = 0.86) at 4 mm apical to IS, respectively. After 12 weeks, buccal bone thickness in the MF group was 0 mm at IS, 0.21 mm at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.56 mm at 4 mm apical to IS, whereas complete loss of buccal bone was measured from IS to 4 mm apical to IS for the MPF group.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this ridge expansion model in miniature pigs, buccal bone volume was significantly better preserved when the periosteum remained attached to the bone.

KEYWORDS:

bone regeneration; bone splitting/ridge expansion; miniature pig; osseointegration; periosteum

PMID:
24965485
DOI:
10.1111/clr.12437
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center