[Is 16 times insufficient? So it’s 100times!]


Two comparative clinical research, comparing two prominent dental bone graft materials!

A paper rather than a hundred of words.

A total of 116 times of comparative clinical trials!
So what about the results?

Study 1

Alveolar ridge regeneration of damaged extraction sockets using deproteinized porcine versus bovine bone minerals: A randomized clinical trial

Backgrounds: Clinical benefits in bone grafting of intact extraction socket have been widely known, but limited evidence is available for the procedure in damaged extraction sockets due to periodontal disease.

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge following bone grafting of damaged extraction sockets, and compare the outcomes of using deproteinized bovine (DBBM) versus porcine bone mineral (DPBM) in the damaged sockets.

Materials and Methods: One hundred patients (n = 50 for each group) with periodontitis-induced damaged extraction socket were included in this randomized, single-blind trial. After removal of tooth and granulation tissue, sites were grafted with either DBBM (DBBM group) or DPBM (DPBM group), and covered with collagen membrane. Linear/volumetric analyses of hard and soft-tissue dimensions were performed on reconstructed/superimposed computed tomog-raphy and scanned cast images, taken immediately and 4 months after surgery.

Study 2

Randomized Clinical Trial of Maxillary Sinus Grafting using Deproteinized Porcine and Bovine Bone Mineral

Background: Deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) was recently developed and commercially available in maxillary sinus grafting, in which demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) was widely used.

Objectives: The present randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to compare histological bone quality and radiographic volume stability in maxillary sinuses grafted with DPBM and DBBM.

Materials and Methods: Twenty sinuses in 16 participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to control and test groups using sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes; laterally approached sinus grafting with DBBM and DPBM, respectively. All participants were blinded to the group assignment during the entire experiment. After standardized osteotomy at the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus, the sinus membrane was elevated, and the control or test biomaterial was grafted. Computed tomography (CT) images were taken immediately after surgery, and another CT and trephine biopsy was taken for radiographic and histological analyses after 6 months. The histological bone quality was measured as a primary outcome, and changes in the height and volume of the graft were evaluated in the reconstructed CT images as secondary outcomes.