title: Comparison of dermal matrix and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for socket bone augmentation: a clinical and histologic study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Remodeling and resorption of the alveolar crest, specifically at the buccal aspect, characterize the healing extraction socket. These result in narrowing and shortening of the alveolar ridge, which compromise esthetics and complicate restoration. Alveolar ridge augmentation has been proposed to facilitate future site restoration by minimizing ridge resorption. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare extraction socket healing and alveolar ridge alteration after socket augmentation using bone allograft covered with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty non-smoking healthy subjects were selected. Each subject required maxillary premolar, canine, or central incisor tooth extraction. The extraction sites were debrided and grafted with a mineralized bone allograft that was covered with an ADM or PTFE membrane. Postoperative appointments were scheduled at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. After 16 weeks of healing, final measurements were performed, and trephine core biopsies were obtained for histomorphometric analysis. Implants were placed immediately after biopsy harvesting.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eighteen subjects completed the study. All sites healed without adverse events and allowed for implant placement. PTFE membranes exfoliated prematurely, with an average retention time of 16.6 days, whereas the ADM membranes appeared to be incorporated into the tissues. Buccal plate thickness loss was 0.44 and 0.3 mm, with a vertical loss of 1.1 and 0.25 mm, for ADM and PTFE, respectively. Bone quality assessment indicated D3 to be the most prevalent (61%). Histomorphometric analysis revealed 41.81% versus 47.36% bone, 58.19% versus 52.64% marrow/fibrous tissue, and 13.93% versus 14.73% particulate graft remaining for ADM and PTFE, respectively. No statistical difference was found between the two treatment groups for any of the parameters.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All sites evaluated showed minimal ridge alterations, with no statistical difference between the two treatment modalities with respect to bone composition and horizontal and vertical bone loss, indicating that both membranes are suitable for alveolar ridge augmentation.
authors.affiliation: West Palm Beach, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Paul D
authors.initials: PD
authors.lastname: Fotek
authors.forename: Rodrigo F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: Neiva
authors.forename: Hom-Lay
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Wang
mesh_terms: D020341:Absorbable Implants; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000517:prevention & control*; D016025:Bone Transplantation; D003094:Collagen; D005260:Female; D048091:Guided Tissue Regeneration / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D008875:Middle Aged; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D020390:Tooth Socket / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: C440568:Alloderm; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D003094:Collagen