Purpose: To evaluate the potential of two bone substitute materials and the influence of different healing periods in guided bone regeneration therapy of osseous defects around implants.
Materials and methods: Twenty-four edentulous patients received implants in the region of the lost lower incisors. Around two standardized osseous defects were created, treated either with a 50:50 mixture of PepGen P-15® and OsteoGraf®/N-700 (test group) or with BioOss® (control group), and covered with titanium membranes. After healing periods of 2, 4, 6, or 9 months, the implants were removed together with the surrounding bone and subsequently prepared for histological evaluations.
Results: Defect depths in both groups showed a clinical reduction after intervention. The histologically measured distance from the implant shoulder to the first point of bone-implant contact (BIC) after treatment did not differ between the two groups. The healing time influenced the level of the first point of BIC, with a longer healing period producing a more coronal first point of BIC. A greater percentage BIC and a higher fraction of mineralized bone were found in the pristine bone area compared with the augmented defect area.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that in the treatment of osseous defects around oral implants, both materials were equally effective bone substitute materials when used in combination with guided bone regeneration.
Keywords: bone regeneration; bone substitute; dental materials; histology; microscopy; oral implants.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.