Estudio de un nuevo material en regeneración y preservación ósea de cavidades alveolares post-extracción

  1. Leticia Blanco Antona
  2. Javier Flores Fraile
  3. Arcadio García de Castro Andrews
  4. Sussette Padilla Mondéjar
  5. Lorena Benito Garzón
  6. Yasmina Guadilla
  7. Abraham Dib
  8. Julio Herrero Payo
  9. Antonio López-Valverde Centeno
  10. Raúl García Carrodeaguas
Gaceta dental: Industria y profesiones

ISSN: 1135-2949

Year of publication: 2016

Issue: 282

Pages: 106-119

Type: Article

More publications in: Gaceta dental: Industria y profesiones


Alveolar bone resorption after tooth extraction is well documented in dental literature. Filling the fresh alveolar socket with a bone substitute is a common practice to preserve bone ridge resorption to facilitate subsequent prosthetic or implant rehabilitation. This work is aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new novel synthetic bone substitute (Sil-Oss®, Azurebio s.l., Spain) for preserving post-extraction alveolar bone. Thirty-three patients, carrying at least one hopeless maxillary premolar tooth and prescribed with extraction and posterior implant rehabilitation, were randomized to receive either Sil-Oss® (n=20, test group) or Bio-Oss® (n=19, control group) in postextraction alveolar sockets, according to a parallel group design at the Dental Clinic of the University of Salamanca, Spain. The implanted sites were followed-up for 26 week by means of periodical clinical exams (8-10 day, 3, 12, 16-20 week) measurement of height and width of the alveolar crest (intraoperatively and 26 week), tomographic radiodensity (8-10 day and 26 week) and histological exam (26 week) of filled sockets. No significant differences were observed during the entire follow-up period between both groups with regard to safety outcomes, i.e., pain, inflammation, edema, suppuration, loss of material, healing and membrane exposure. Alveolar bone experienced small reduction in width (-0.9±1.3 mm Sil-Oss® vs. -0.6±1.5 mm Bio-Oss®) and height (-0.1±0.9 mm Sil-Oss® vs. -0.3±0.7 mm Bio-Oss®) in both experimental groups, however, no significant difference between groups was found. The radiodensity of sockets filled with Sil-Oss® was significantly lower than those ones filled with Bio-Oss® at the endpoints of 8-10 day and 26 week. Radiodensity of implanted sites apparently increased with time for both groups, however, the increments were not found statistically significant. According to the results Sil-Oss® was as safe and effective as Bio-Oss® for preserving alveolar ridge dimensions. The tomographic density of the sites implanted with Sil-Oss® was significantly lower than those corresponding to Bio-Oss®. However, the histologic results showed that osteoid matrix and remodeling new bone was more abundant in sites implanted with Sil-Oss® than in those corresponding to Bio-Oss®.