Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation, Dimensional Changes, and Residual Particles in Alveolar Ridge Preservation Techniques Using InterOss® Anorganic Cancellous Bone Graft: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract

Background and Objective. Following tooth extraction, socket healing leads to bone remodeling, which generally results in significant local anatomical changes in the height and width of the residual alveolar ridge. This study aimed to compare dimensional changes through histological and histomorphometric evaluation of newly formed bone and residual graft particles. Materials and Methods. We worked on 14 single-root or premolar teeth with fused roots with an indication for the preservation of the alveolar ridge and the subsequent placement of a dental implant. The techniques performed in the study were the Bartee technique for the preservation of the alveolar crest in seven teeth that presented a good amount of the remaining bone tissue (minimum 4 mm in the apical–coronal direction) or that had a buccal or lingual/palatine wall defect (group A) and the Bio-Col alveolar preservation technique (group B), in seven teeth that presented an intact alveolus (four remaining walls). Xenograft was used in both groups. Results: Morphometric evaluation of group A (Bartee technique) and group B (Bio-Col technique) showed 11.48% and 13.24% of reabsorption in the vertical direction (p=0.482) and 21.95% and 20.55% in the horizontal direction, respectively (p=0.949). At 6 months of healing, the histomorphometric evaluation showed 31.10% new bone formation and 28.09% residual particles in group A, 13.24% new bone formation (p=0.744), and 20.55% residual particles for group B (p=0.302). There were no statistically significant differences in dimensional changes between both groups. Conclusions. The Bartee and Bio-Col alveolar ridge preservation technique combined with a xenograft provides dimensional stability, counteracting the physiological resorption process and ensuring the stability of the surrounding tissues. Therefore, both techniques represent a predictable option for dental implant placement at 6 months of healing.