IADR Abstract Archives
Exploring the use of demineralized bone matrix allograft in conjunction with implant placement
Objectives: Demineralized bone matrix allograft (DBM) has long been used in orthopedics but has been recently introduced to dentistry. Puros Demineralized Bone Matrix (Puros DBM) maintains osteoinductive as well as osteoconductive properties allowing the regeneration of bone. Puros DBM is easy to handle through scaffolding elements such as collagenous and noncollagenous proteins. Puros DBM is composed of 100% human derived allograft, including active noncollagenous DBM portion, carrier or collagenous protein matrix, cortico-cancellous bone (in some versions), and water.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was employed. Patients that received Puros demineralized bone matrix allograft putty with cortico-cancellous bone at the same time as the implant placement were included as a test group. The control group was selected and matched by the implant/tooth site, demographic, and surgical procedures. Procedures employed, complications, and peri-implant bone loss (after the first year of functional load) were reviewed.
Results: There were a total of 31 implants (in 21 patients) placed with demineralized bone matrix, 15 titanium, 16 porous-tantalum enhanced trabecular metal enhanced titanium implants and matched 31 implants (in 22 patients) placed without grafting. Clinical procedures included 10 implants with bone augmentations, 15 with immediate implant placements, and 6 with crestal sinus lift procedures. There were no statistical significant differences in the peri-implant crestal bone loss between the control and test groups (paired t-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Demineralized bone matrix allograft provides an alternative to the gold standard autograft. In this exploratory retrospective study, demineralized bone matrix seems to provide sufficient clinical outcomes. The main clinical advantages are the handling properties in particular cases with repairing socket defects in immediate implant placements and sinus augmentations.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was employed. Patients that received Puros demineralized bone matrix allograft putty with cortico-cancellous bone at the same time as the implant placement were included as a test group. The control group was selected and matched by the implant/tooth site, demographic, and surgical procedures. Procedures employed, complications, and peri-implant bone loss (after the first year of functional load) were reviewed.
Results: There were a total of 31 implants (in 21 patients) placed with demineralized bone matrix, 15 titanium, 16 porous-tantalum enhanced trabecular metal enhanced titanium implants and matched 31 implants (in 22 patients) placed without grafting. Clinical procedures included 10 implants with bone augmentations, 15 with immediate implant placements, and 6 with crestal sinus lift procedures. There were no statistical significant differences in the peri-implant crestal bone loss between the control and test groups (paired t-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Demineralized bone matrix allograft provides an alternative to the gold standard autograft. In this exploratory retrospective study, demineralized bone matrix seems to provide sufficient clinical outcomes. The main clinical advantages are the handling properties in particular cases with repairing socket defects in immediate implant placements and sinus augmentations.