Volumetric and histological evaluation of Osteon II Collagen with Hyaluronic Acid versus Sticky bone graft in Three Dimensional socket preservation

  • Abdullah A
  • Ali H
  • Al-Ashmawy M
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim: To compare socket bone preservation using Osteon II Collagen mixed with Hyaluronic Acid (Hy A) versus autologous concentrated growth factors enriched bone graft matrix (sticky bone) assessed by 3D cone beam computed tomography and histological evaluation. Patients and methods: 30 patients were treatment planned for extraction of mandibular first molar teeth, leaving 30 sockets for the study. Sockets were divided randomly into two equal groups. Sockets were grafted as follows: Group (I) sockets were grafted by Osteon II Collagen mixed with Hy A, Group (II) sockets were grafted by sticky bone graft. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiographs at one day, 3 and 6 months were postoperatively done to assess bone density and tooth socket dimensions. Microscopic evaluation was performed at 6 months before implant insertion. All readings were recorded and analyzed statistically. Results: There is a high statistically significant difference between study groups as regards the mean values of bone density, bone height, and percentage of volume change. In another the side, other parameters showed insignificant differences between the study groups. Histological study referred to more maturation of bone in group I than group II. Conclusion: The results clearly concluded that both Osteon II Collagen mixed with HyA and sticky bone are successful in achieving clinical and 3D volumetric socket bone preservation with superiority for Osteon II Collagen mixed with HyA .

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abdullah, A. A., Ali, H., Al-Ashmawy, M., & Mwafey, I. (2020). Volumetric and histological evaluation of Osteon II Collagen with Hyaluronic Acid versus Sticky bone graft in Three Dimensional socket preservation. Egyptian Dental Journal, 66(3), 1483–1494. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2020.26333.1081

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free