Clinical efficacy of mineralized collagen (MC) versus anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) for immediate implant placement in esthetic area: a single-center retrospective study

• Main Authors: Yan Dai, Jin Xu, Xiao-Hui Han, Fu-Zhai Cui, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Sheng-Yun Huang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-08-01
• Series: BMC Oral Health
• Subjects: Mineralized collagen; Immediate implant implantation; Osseointegration
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01752-4

Abstract Background The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of mineralized collagen (MC) versus anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) for immediate implant placement in esthetic area. Methods Medical records of Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Shandong Provincial Hospital were screened for patients who had been treated with immediate implant implantation in the esthetic area using either MC (Allgens®, Beijing Allgens Medical Science and Technology Co., Ltd., China) or Bio-Oss (Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland), between January 2018 and December 2019. All patients fulfilling the in-/exclusion criteria and following followed for a minimum period of 1 year after surgery were enrolled into the presented study. Implant survival rate, radiographic, esthetic and patient satisfactory evaluations were performed. Results Altogether, 70 patients were included in the study; a total of 80 implants were inserted. All implants had good initial stability. The survival rate of implants was 100% at 1-year follow-up. The differences in horizontal and vertical bone loss between the MC group (0.72 ± 0.26 mm, 1.62 ± 0.84 mm) and the Bio-Oss group (0.70 ± 0.52 mm, 1.57 ± 0.88 mm) were no significant difference statistically no significant 6 months after permanent restoration. Similar results occurred at 12 months after permanent restoration functional loaded. Clinical acceptability defined by pink esthetic score (PES) ≥ 6 (6.07 ± 1.62 vs. 6.13 ± 1.41) was not significantly different between groups. Patient satisfaction estimated by visual analog scale (VAS) was similar (8.56 ± 1.12 vs. 8.27 ± 1.44), and the difference was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions The biomimetic MC showed a similar behaviour as Bio-Oss not only in its dimensional tissues changes but also in clinical acceptability and patient satisfaction. Within the limitations of this study, these cases show that MC could be considered as an alternative bone graft in IIP