Indian Journal of Dental Sciences (Oct 2024)

Assessment of Autogenous Tooth Dentin Graft with Allogenic Bone Graft in the Preservation of Alveolar Ridge: A Clinicoradiographic Study

  • Sandeep Kumar Dubey,
  • Shreya Bhowmik,
  • Mayur Bose,
  • Pritish Chandra Pal,
  • Savan Sunari Rajaram,
  • Ashish Bali,
  • Uttam Kumar Sen,
  • Swet Nisha

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/ijds.ijds_28_24
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 3
pp. 119 – 125

Abstract

Read online

Background Alveolar ridge is dynamic in nature. Preservation of residual alveolar ridge is always desirable. Bone grafts and platelet concentrates can be used for socket preservation. Maintenance of bone volume is essential and various ridge augmentation techniques are used for desirable functional and esthetic outcomes. Aim Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of autogenous dentin block versus allograft block in preserving alveolar ridge dimension with 6-month follow-up. Materials and Methods Twenty subjects indicated for tooth extraction were randomly divided into three groups. In Group I, autogenous dentin graft with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane was used as socket filling material, Group II: allogenic bone graft with PRF membrane, or Group III: control group (socket left ungrafted). Clinical and radiographic examinations were done using periodontal probe and cone-beam computed tomography. Results On intragroup comparison of socket size, the mean for Group I was found to be 33.270 mm2 at baseline and 25.358 mm after 12 months for Group II was found to be 53.250 mm2 at baseline and socket fill was 41.875 mm2 at 12 months. Group III was found to be 43.483 mm2 at baseline, and socket fill was 15.063 mm2 at 12 months. On intergroup comparison, the values were found to be statistically nonsignificant both at baseline (12 months postoperatively. The crestal bone loss was 0.975 for Group I, 1.075 for Group II, and 2.925 mm for Group III. Crestal bone loss was seen highest in Group III and lowest for Group I. The mean percentage of socket fill was found to be 80.01% for Group I, 76.13% for Group II, and 34.03% for Group I. Conclusion A significant amount of radiographic socket fill was appreciated over 12 months in all the three groups. The percentage of socket fill in Group I was 80.01% and in Group II was 76.13% and the difference between them was statistically nonsignificant. Statistically significant socket fill was seen for both Group 1 and Group 2.

Keywords