The Effects of Guided Bone Regeneration and Grafting on Implants Placed Into Immediate Extraction Sockets. An Experimental Study in Dogs

Abstract

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of insufficient bone volume around implants can be performed using membranes with or without grafting materials (i.e., autogenous, allogenous, xenogenous, or alloplastic grafts). A possible way to evaluate the quality of implant osseointegration is the torque necessary to remove implants from their bony housing. The aim of this study was to compare the torques necessary to remove dental implants from implant beds reconstructed with different bone substitutes and GBR or GBR alone in 6 adult mongrel dogs. All mandibular premolare were extracted and 3 extraction sockets on each side were enlarged using a trephine bur. A 13 mm titanium screw‐type dental implant (3.75 mm diameter) was placed in each enlarged extraction socket so that only the apical 3 to 4 mm were engaged in bone. The 3 defects were then randomly treated with either 1) canine demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA) plus GBR using an expanded polytetrafluoroefhylene membrane (DFDBA+GTAM); 2) bioabsorbable hydroxyapatite and GBR (HA+GTAM); or 3) GBR (GTAM alone). After 6 months, the torque to remove the implants was measured in 4 animals and analyzed using ANOVA. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups (GTAM alone: 46.37 ± 16.41 Ncm; HA+GTAM: 46.00 ± 16.59 Ncm; DFDBA+ GTAM: 52.15 ± 29.24 Ncm). In addition, the influence of early removal of barriers on the torque values was evaluated with the t‐test. Comparing exposed versus retained membranes by treatment modality, the only statistically significant difference was found in the DFDBA+GTAM group. When the torque values of all implants with exposed and retrieved membranes were compared to all those with retained membranes a significant difference could be detected. Histologic sections were prepared from the 2 dogs not included in the removal torque testing. In the histometric analysis the GTAM alone group showed a mean minerahzed bone‐to‐implant‐contact of 27.1%, the DFDBA+GTAM group of 34.6%, and the HA+GTAM of 39.3%. The mineralized bone‐to‐implant‐contact of the HA+GTAM group was significantly higher than that of the GTAM alone group. In addition, the minerahzed bone‐to‐implant‐contact was divided into an apical and coronal part using the apical seventh thread as the dividing landmark. In the apical region, there was no significant difference between the groups regarding minerahzed bone‐to‐rmplantcontact. In the coronal part the minerahzed bone‐to‐implant‐contact of the GTAM alone group was significantly lower compared to the other 2 groups. Within the limits of this investigation, it can be concluded that the type of grafting material will not influence torque removal values, but that early membrane exposure and removal will negatively influence the torque measurements. The combination of GBR with a bone substitute increased the minerahzed bone‐to‐implant contact. J Periodontol 1998;69:927–937.