The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the effect on extraction socket healing when an absorbable hydroxyapatite (AH) and a nonabsorbable anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABB) covered with either an acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane barrier were left exposed to the oral cavity. Following tooth extraction, a total of 16 sockets in 15 patients with deficient buccal plates of ≥5 mm were randomly divided into 4 treatment groups: 1) AH covered with ADMA, 2) AH covered with an ePTFE membrane, 3) ABB covered with ADMA, and 4) ABB covered with an ePTFE membrane. Primary coverage was not attempted or obtained in any of the 16 treated sockets. Six to 8 months postextraction at the time of implant placement, histologic cores of the treatment sites were obtained. These cores were processed, stained with Stevenel's blue/ van Gieson's picro fuchsin, and histomorphometrically analyzed. Vital bone, connective tissue and marrow, and residual graft particles were reported as a percentage of the total core. The mean vital bone was 34.5% (AH with ADMA), 41.7% (ABB with ADMA), 27.6% (ePTFE and AH), and 17.8% (ePTFE and ABB). The average percentage of vital bone in the 8 sockets covered with ADAMA was 38% compared with an average percentage vital bone of 22% in the 8 sockets covered with ePTFE membrane barriers. Because of the small number of specimens in the 4 groups, statistical analysis was not possible. However, in this pilot study, ADMA-covered sites resulted in more vital bone present 6 to 8 months postsocket treatment than obtained in the ePTFE-covered sites regardless of bone replacement materials used. Further research is warranted to see if these results show a similar difference in bone-to-implant contact after implant placement.
- Absorbable hydroxyapatite
- Acellular dermal matrix allograft
- Barrier membrane
- Extraction socket
- Histomorphometric analysis