China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ›› 2017, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (3): 214-219.doi: 10.19438/j.cjoms.2017.03.005

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Radiographic evaluation of using concentrate growth factor for alveolar ridge preservation in Beagle dog

CHIU Han-hsuan, ZHENG Ji-si, ZHANG Shan-yong.   

  1. Department of Oral Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine;
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology. Shanghai 200011, China
  • Received:2016-09-21 Revised:2017-01-14 Online:2017-05-20 Published:2017-06-09

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare bone dimensional changes following extraction alone, extraction plus ridge preservation (using deproteinized boving bone mineral Bio-Oss, concentrate growth factors CGF and bioresorbable collagen membrane Bio-Gide) on radiographs. METHODS: In 4 Beagle dogs, the distal roots of the first and the second mandibular premolars were removed. The sockets in the right or the left jaw quadrant were grafted randomly with either deproteinized boving bone mineral(Bio-Oss with Bio-gide) as experimental group 2 or with concentrate growth factors (CGF with Bio-gide) as experimental group 1 or both of them(Bio-Oss plus CGF wit Bio-gide) as experimental group 3 and control group (no treament , natural healing). Raidographic examination was taken every month for 3 months. Simplant software was used for image reconstruction, SPSS13.0 software package was used for analysis. RESULTS: CT scanning showed that there was significant difference in alveolar ridge width between experimental group 2 (2.497±0.1823)mm, experimental group 3 (2.790±0.2230)mm and control group(1.800±0.2400 )mm(P<0.05). In buccal height, there was significant difference between experimental group 2 (4.927±0.4260mm), experimental group 3 (5.320±1.165)mm,experimental group 1 (4.770±0.2178)mm, and control group(3.850±0.3000)mm (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between 4 groups in lingual height and in buccal thickness. Lingual bone thickness in experimental group 2 was (1.573±0.08102) mm and (1.320±0.3842)mm in experimental group 3, which had significant difference from control group (1.355±0.05500)mm and experimental group 1 (1.010 ± 0.1607)mm(P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that alveolar preservation with Bio-Oss plus CGF is better than CGF alone.

Key words: Alveolar ridge preservation, Concentrate growth factors, Beagle dog

CLC Number: