The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Level Changes for Allografts or Xenografts Placed during Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Chiang X Mae, Naresh Y Shetty

Keywords : Bone augmentation, Bone level changes, Dental implant success, Implant osteotomy

Citation Information : Mae CX, Shetty NY. Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Level Changes for Allografts or Xenografts Placed during Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (10):1082-1086.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3195

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate initial peri-implant crestal bone level changes when the allografts and xenografts were placed simultaneously during the implant placement. Materials and methods: This retrospective study was planned with the convenient sampling total of 77 implant sites that were bone grafted either with allografts (group I) or xenografts (group II). Using the periapical radiographs obtained after placement of bone grafts as baseline, the changes in the alveolar crestal bone around the implants were evaluated by comparing periapical radiographs taken at 3 months and 6 or 8 months after the surgery. Results: The alveolar bone loss at crestal region at the time of placement of bone grafts were −1.85 ± 1.26 mm at the xenograft sites and −1.75 ± 1.51 mm at allograft sites, respectively (p = 0.791). At the time of reentry, 3 months after tooth extraction and ridge preservation, the bone dimensions were 1.17 ± 0.83 mm for xenograft and 1.00 ± 1.14 mm for allograft (p = 0.523). At the final reentry, bone-grafted sites were divided into after 6 months and after 8 months postoperatively. After 3 months, the allografts showed lesser bone resorption (0.9 ± 0.52 mm) as compared with the xenografts (1.25 ± 1.00 mm). The bone loss after 8 months for the allografts was spiked to 1.83 ± 0.42 mm as compared with the xenografts 1.37 ± 1.12 mm with no statistically significant difference (p >0.05). Conclusion: Both allografts and xenografts present comparable crestal bone level changes around dental implants when simultaneously placed during implant placement surgery. Clinical significance: Both allografts and xenografts are suitable for the preservation of the alveolar ridge regarding crestal bone level changes. Selection of allografts and xenografts may not be carried out based upon the crestal bone level changes.

  1. Qabbani AA, Kawas SA, Enezei H, et al. Biomechanical and radiological assessment of immediate implants for alveolar ridge preservation. Dent Res J 2018;15(6):420–429. PMID: 30534170; PMCID: PMC6243806.
  2. Natto Z, Yaghmoor W, Bannuru R, et al. Identification and efficacy ranking of allograft and xenograft for extraction and ridge preservation procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017;37(5):e253–e260. DOI: 10.11607/prd.3323.
  3. Méndez CAS, Lang NP, Caneva M, et al. Comparison of allografts and xenografts used for alveolar ridge preservation. A clinical and histomorphometric RCT in humans Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(4):608–615. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12490.
  4. Vance GS, Greenwell H, Miller RL, et al. Comparison of an allograft in an experimental putty carrier and a bovine-derived xenograft used in ridge preservation: a clinical and histologic study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(4):491–497. PMID: 15346745.
  5. Becker W, Becker BE, Caffesse R. A comparison of demineralized freeze-dried bone and autologous bone to induce bone formation in human extraction sockets. J Periodontol 1994;65(12):1128–1133. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1994.65.12.1128.
  6. Dies F, Etienne D, Abboud NB, et al. Bone regeneration in extraction sites after immediate placement of an e-PTFE membrane with or without a biomaterial. A report on 12 consecutive cases. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7(3):277–285. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070310.x.
  7. Kangwannarongkul T, Subbalekha K, Vivatbutsiri P, et al. Gene expression and microcomputed tomography analysis of grafted bone using deproteinized bovine bone and freeze-dried human bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:541–548. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6234.
  8. Kumar P, Fathima G, Vinitha B. Bone grafts in dentistry. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013;5(Suppl. 1):S125–S127. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.113312.
  9. Iasella JM, Greenwell H, Miller RL, et al. Ridge preservation with freeze-dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74(7):990–999. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.7.990.
  10. Babaei M, Sadeghi R, Miremadi S, et al. A randomized controlled evaluation of alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction using deproteinized bovine bone material and demineralised freeze-dried bone allograft. Dental Res J 2016;13(2):151–159. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.178202.
  11. Nart J, Barallat L, Jimenez D, et al. Radiographic and histological evaluation of deproteinized bovine bone mineral vs. deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen in ridge preservation. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;28(7):840–848. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12889.
  12. Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(7):688–698. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01918.x.
  13. Tan W, Lang N, Wong T, et al. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(Suppl 5):1–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
  14. Darby I, Chen ST, Buser D. Ridge preservation techniques for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(Suppl.):260–271. PMID: 19885449.
  15. Lombardi T, Bernardello F, Berton F, et al. Efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation after maxillary molar extraction in reducing crestal bone resorption and sinus pneumatization: a multicenter prospective case-control study. Biomed Res Int 2018:9352130. DOI: 10.1155/2018/9352130.
  16. Ten Heggeler JM, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;22(8): 779–788. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x.
  17. Lee DW, Pi SH, Lee SK, et al. Comparative histomorphometric analysis of extraction sockets healing implanted with bovine xenografts, irradiated cancellous allografts, and solvent-dehydrated allografts in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(4):609–615. PMID: 19885400.
  18. Patil PG, Nimbalkar-Patil S. A radiographic measurement technique for crest bone changes related to dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113(4):350–351. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.002.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.