Stomatologist № 1 (36) – 2020, pp. 38-45                                                                                   DENTAL IMPLANTOLOGY. UKRAINE

Comparative clinical densitometric study of post-extraction defects of the jaw bone parameters of patients of various biotypes using xenogenic osteoplastic material at different observation times

A.V. Lyubchenkoa, V.N. Chernenkob

aMD, PhD, DMSci, Professor, Kharkov Medical Institute of Postgraduate Education, Kharkov, Ukraine
bSumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine

https://doi.org/10.32993/stomatologist.2020.1(36).9

ABSTRACT
The aim of the study. Compare the terms of repair of bone density parameters depending on its biotype when using xenogenic osteoplastic material “Bioplast-Dent” (Russia) for its further use in various clinical situations.
Objects and methods. A densitometry study based on computed tomography of post-extraction defects filled with osteoplastic material “Bioplast-Dent” was performed in 40 patients with bone biotype D1, D2, D3, D4. The comparison group consisted of 20 patients who did not use osteogenic materials after tooth extraction. The study was carried out immediately after tooth extraction and filling of its socket with xenogenic osteoplastic material, as well as at 6 and 12 months.
Results and discussion. Densitometric studies showed that a denser jaw bone has a significantly higher recovery rate. The main repair processes in the bones of biotypes D1, D2 and D3 are completed in the first six months after tooth extraction (U1 = 3.8; p = 0.00012), further minor changes are observed that occur significantly more slowly than in the first observation period. For bones of biotype D4, density recovery occurs almost identically throughout the year (2.8 210 HU / month).
Conclusion. Given the rate of bone restoration with a biotype of the jaws D1 (178.8 HU / month) compared with a bone of the biotype D2 (125.7 HU / month), which, in turn, is restored reliably (U2 = 3.8; p = 0 , 00017) is faster than the D3 biotype (87.3 HU / month), which indicates significant differences in the reparative properties of the bones and the dependence of the recovery rate on their density, which should be taken into account when choosing the type of dental implantation and further management of such patients.

Keywords: surgical template, dental implantation

References 

  1. Bumeyster V.I., Pogorelov M.V. Sovremennyy vzglyad na reparativnyy osteogenez [The modern view of reparative osteogenesis] Mir meditsiny i biologii. – World of medicine and biology. no. 4, pp 104–109.
  2. Godovana O.I. Vliyanie glikozaminoglikanov na khod protsessov reparativnogo osteogeneza v eksperimente [The effect of glycosaminoglycans on the course of reparative osteogenesis in the experiment]. Vestnik problem biologii i meditsiny. – Bulletin of problems of biology and medicine. 2016, vol. 1(126), no. 1, pp. 270–276.
  3.  Ivanov S.Yu., Larionov E.V., Panin A.M. [et al.] Razrabotka biomaterialov dlya osteoplastiki na osnove kollagena kostnoy tkani [Development of biomaterials for osteoplasty based on bone collagen]. Klinicheskaya stomatologiya. – Clinical Dentistry. 2005, no. 4, pp. 21–23.
  4.  Kirilova I.A. Demineralizovannyy kostnyy transplantat kak stimulyator osteogeneza: sovremennye kontseptsii [Demineralized bone graft as a stimulator of osteogenesis: modern concepts]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika. – Spinal Surgery. 2004, no. 3, pp. 105–110.
  5.  Kirilova I.A., Sadovoy M.A., Podorozhnaya V.T. Sravnitel’naya kharakteristika materialov dlya kostnoy plastiki: sostav i svoystva [Comparative characteristics of materials for bone grafting: composition and properties]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika. – Spinal Surgery. 2012, no. 3, pp. 72–83.
  6.  Korzh N.A., Malyshkina S.V., Kladchenko L.A. Implantatsionnye materialy i osteogenez. Rol’ biologicheskoy fiksatsii i osteointegratsii v rekonstruktsii kosti [Implant materials and osteogenesis. The role of biological fixation and osseointegration in bone reconstruction]. Ortopediya,travmatologiya i protezirovanie. – Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. 2005, no. 4, pp. 118–127.
  7.  Lik R.R., Sirko O.M. Profіlaktika atrofії kіstkovoї tkanini al’veolyarnogo vіdrostka pіslya vidalennya zuba [Prevention of atrophy of the tissue of the alveolar posterior posterior view of the tooth]. Novini stomatologії. – New Dentists. 2012, no. 2, pp. 103–105.
  8.  Mish K.E. Ortopedicheskoe lechenie s oporoy na dental’nye implantaty (2 izdanie) [Orthopedic treatment based on dental implants (2nd edition)]. Moskow: MEDpress – inform., 2017. 616 p.
  9.  Nikitin D.A., Mirgazizov M.Z. Lechenie i reabilitatsiya bol’nykh posle kosino – rekonstruktivnykh i vosstanovitel’nykh operatsiy na nizhney chelyusti s ispol’zoaniem endoprotezirovanie i dental’nykh implantaov [Treatment and rehabilitation of patients after kosino – reconstructive and reconstructive surgery on the lower jaw using endoprosthetics and dental implants]. Al’manakh klinicheskoy meditsiny. – Almanac of clinical medicine. 2011, no. 24, pp. 16–20.
  10.  Pikalyuk V.S., Mostovoy S.O. Sovremennye predstavleniya o biologii i funktsii kostnoy tkani [Modern ideas about the biology and function of bone tissue]. Tavricheskiy mediko-biologicheskiy vestnik. – Tauride Medical and Biological Bulletin. 2006, no. 9, pp. 186–194.
  11.  Smektala T., Tutak M., Єnzhzheєvskі M., Spornyak-Tutak L. Bіologіchnі osnovi osteoіntegrvtsії [Biological basis of osteointegration]. Іmplantologіya. Paradontologіya. Osteologіya. – Implantology. Periodontology. Osteology. 2014, no. 4(36), pp. 26–29.
  12.  Tkachenko S.S., Rutskiy V.V. Staticheskie elektricheskie potentsialy kosti i rol’ vektora polyarizatsii pri elektrostimulyatsii osteoreparatsii [Static electric potentials of the bone and the role of the polarization vector during electrical stimulation of osteoreparation]. Ortopediya, travmatologiya i protezirovanie. – Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. 1981, no. 10, pp. 1–5.
  13.  Augat P., Simon U., Liedert A. Mechanics and mechnobiology of fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos lnt., 2005, no. 16, pp. 36–43.
  14.  Misch C.E. Densiti of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive loading. Int J Oral Implantol., 1990, no. 6, pp. 23–31.
  15.  Sennerby L., Meredith N. Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontology, 2000, vol. 47, no. 1. pp. 51–66.
  16.  Tallger А. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complite denture wearers: a mixed longitudinal study covering 25 yers. J Prosthet Dent., 1972, no. 27, pp. 120–132.
  17.  Zitzmann U. Nicola. Alveolar ridge augmentation with Bio-Oss: a histologic study in humans. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 2001, no. 21.

Correspondence to:  Е-mail: ualexlub@gmail.com