Photographic ridge width measurement after two different alveolar ridge preservation procedures: clinical study analysis part III.
This study aimed to photographically compare the ridge width at baseline, immediately post-surgery, at four weeks, and eight weeks thereafter, after using two different ridge preservation procedures. Part I of this clinical study randomly allocated a total of 26 extraction sites from 17 patients to either study group using a computer-generated randomization assignment software. Only 16 sites were qualified for this final analysis. The groups were: group I, received cortico-cancellous allograft bone chips (CCBC) mix and a dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) barrier membrane; and group II, received type I bovine Achillestendon collagen plug with bioactive resorbable calcium apatite crystals (CPCAC). Adobe Photoshop® CS3 was used to measure the ridge width at the extraction site at four distinct time points: baseline (T0), immediately postoperatively (PO) (T1), four weeks PO (T2), and eight weeks PO (T3). The experimental design was a typical repeated-measures design. Statistical significance was evaluated at p< 0.0042 to adjust for multiple comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found between groups I and II at any assessment, regardless of whether the assessment was expressed as an absolute measurement in millimeters or as a percentage of change from baseline assessed before surgery. However, the percentage of ridge width reduction significantly increased over time within each group, when comparing each pair of time points, except for the T0-T1 (p<0.0001)and T2-T3 (p<0.0001) comparisons. The sockets that received CPCAC showed similar ridge width reduction when compared to the group that received CCBC with dPTFE at T3. There was no statistically significant difference in ridge width within each group, for both T0-T1 and for T2-T3 (p = 0.0042). However, the percentage of width reduction significantly increased over time within each group, when comparing each two-time points, except for the T0-T1 and T2-T3 comparisons.Abstract
Background:
Materials & Methods:
Results:
Conclusion:
Contributor Notes
Conflict of Interest:The authors declareno conflict of interest.