4.5 Article

Combining autologous particulate dentin, L-PRF, and fibrinogen to create a matrix for predictable ridge preservation: a pilot clinical study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 1151-1160

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02922-z

Keywords

Bone substitute; Bone regeneration; Dentin; Dentin block; GBR; Ridge preservation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the histological and clinical outcome of dentin block (a mixture of autologous particulate dentin, leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF), and liquid fibrinogen) in alveolar ridge preservation. Material and methods Ten extraction sockets were grafted with dentin block, a mixture of particulate autologous dentin with chopped leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) membranes at a 1:1 ratio, and liquid fibrinogen as a binder. Two grafted sites were followed at 4 and 5 months, and 6 sites at 6 months. Biopsies were taken from the core of the grafted site for histologic and histo-morphometric analysis. Results All patients completed the study without any adverse event. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge were preserved or even increased after 4, 5, or 6 months and remained stable after 6 months of the implant placement. The histological examination revealed a median relative percentage of bone, dentin, and connective tissue of 57.0, 0.9, and 39.3%, respectively. A comparison of samples at different time points (4, 5, and 6 months) showed a progressive increase in the proportion of bone with a decrease in the proportion of dentin. The bone was compact with normal osteocytes and moderate osteoblastic activity. In 4 out of 10 samples, no dentin was observed; in the other samples, it represented 1-5% (with geometric fragments). Conclusions Dentin block showed to be a suitable bone substitute in an alveolar ridges preservation model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available