{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029197080291970802, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018892228424216402, 'mean_word_length': 5.544943820224719, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Histologic healing following tooth extraction with ridge preservation using mineralized versus combined mineralized-demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND
Mineralized and demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (FDBAs) are used in alveolar ridge (AR) preservation; however, each material has advantages and disadvantages. Combinations of allografts aimed at capitalizing on the advantages each offers are available. To date, there is no evidence to indicate if a combination allograft is superior in this application. The primary objective of this study is to histologically evaluate and compare healing of non-molar extraction sites grafted with either mineralized FDBA or a 70:30 mineralized:demineralized FDBA combination allograft in AR preservation. The secondary objective is to compare dimensional changes in ridge height and width after grafting with these two materials.


METHODS
Forty-two patients randomized into two equal groups received ridge preservation with either 100% mineralized FDBA (active control group) or the combination 70% mineralized: 30% demineralized allograft (test group). Sites were allowed to heal for 18 to 20 weeks, at which time core biopsies were obtained and dental implants were placed. AR dimensions were evaluated at the time of extraction and at implant placement, including change in ridge width and change in buccal and lingual ridge height. Histomorphometric analysis was performed to determine percentage of vital bone, residual graft, and connective tissue/other non-bone components.


RESULTS
There was no significant difference between groups in AR dimensional changes. Combination allograft produced increased vital bone percentage (36.16%) compared to the FDBA group (24.69%; P = 0.0116). The combination allograft also had a significantly lower mean percentage of residual graft particles (18.24%) compared to FDBA (27.04%; P = 0.0350).


CONCLUSIONS
This study provides the first histologic evidence showing greater new bone formation with a combination mineralized/demineralized allograft compared to 100% mineralized FDBA in AR preservation in humans. Combination allograft results in increased vital bone formation while providing similar dimensional stability of the AR compared to FDBA alone in AR preservation.