Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 13 Mar 2025

Repairing Dehiscence Defects at Implant Sites Using β-Tricalcium Phosphate/Calcium Sulfate Versus Xenograft Combined With Membrane: A Randomized Clinical Trial

DDS, MSc,
DDS, FCRDT, and
DDS, PhD
Page Range: 6 – 13
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00048
Save
Download PDF

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) typically involves bone grafts and a membrane to enhance bone formation. Beta-tricalcium phosphate calcium sulfate (β-TCP/CS) is a novel material with self-hardening and tissue growth inhibition properties and can potentially replace the need for a membrane. This study compares β-tricalcium phosphate/calcium sulfate with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane (DBBM/CM) to repair bone defects at implant sites over 6 months. Sixteen implant defects were divided into β-TCP/CS (n = 8) and DBBM/CM (n = 8). The results showed no significant differences in vertical and horizontal defect fill in millimeters between β-TCP/CS (2.87 ± 1.25 and 2.37 ± 1.06 mm, respectively) and DBBM/CM (3.5 ± 0.92 and 2.87 ± 1.12 mm, respectively). Buccal bone thickness (BT) alterations at the implant platform levels (BT0) were similar for both materials. However, β-TCP/CS exhibited greater bone alteration at the 2-mm level (BT2: −1.85 mm vs −0.47 mm) and 4-mm level (BT4: −1.79 mm vs 0.12 mm) apical to the implant platform compared to DBBM/CM. When assessing volume alteration, β-TCP/CS showed a significantly greater reduction at the platform to the 2 mm level (−61.98% vs −23.76%) than DBBM/CM. In conclusion, β-TCP/CS demonstrated promise for treating buccal bone defects around implants but exhibited higher graft reduction. This suggests that while β-tricalcium phosphate/calcium sulfate may offer clinical benefits, its potential for greater graft reduction should be considered. Further research and evaluation are warranted to fully understand the long-term implications of using β-TCP/CS in guided bone regeneration procedures.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

CONSORT flowchart of the study.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Clinical peri-implant bone defect measurement diagram showing the implant defect’s height, width, and depth.


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Illustration of radiographic bone thickness measurements: bone thickness at platform level (BT0); bone thickness at 2 mm from platform level (BT2); and bone thickness at 4 mm from platform level (BT4).


Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Clinical case samples from the (a–b) B-TCP/CS and (b–c) DBBM/CM groups from the time of implant surgery to 6 months after re-entry.


Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Buccal bone thickness parameters are represented by a bar chart: (a) bone graft thickness at the 6-month mark and (b) the change in bone graft thickness at BT0, BT2 mm, and BT4 mm relative to the platform level.


Figure 6.
Figure 6.

The bar chart illustrates the percentage of bone volume alteration at BV2 and BV4.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: narit.l@psu.ac.th
  • Download PDF