Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The socket preservation technique involves filling the bone defect that occurs after a tooth is extracted with bone substitute material. This procedure helps to minimize bone resorption of the alveolar ridge following extraction. Various bone substitute biomaterials can be used for augmentation, including autogenous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic options. This study aimed to assess changes in alveolar ridge dimensions and variations in radiographic bone density in sockets grafted with two distinct biomaterials. Furthermore, bone biopsies collected from the grafted sites were subjected to histological analysis. Methods: Forty generally healthy patients were enrolled in the study and split into four equal groups. The first and third groups underwent first or second maxillary premolar extraction and received treatment with an allogeneic material (BIOBank®, Biobank, Paris, France), while the second and fourth groups underwent first or second mandibular molar extraction and were treated with a xenogeneic material (Geistlich Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Following tooth extraction, the appropriate biomaterial was inserted into the socket. It was covered with a collagen membrane (Geistlich Bio-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and stabilized with sutures, which were removed seven to ten days after the procedure. Micro-CBCT scans were conducted to evaluate the dimensions of the alveolar ridge and the radiographic density of the grafted socket at 7–10 days and 6 months after the procedure. A bone trepanobiopsy was performed concurrently with implant placement six months after socket preservation. The obtained biopsy was analyzed histologically using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson’s trichrome staining. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in alveolar ridge height or width preservation between allogeneic and xenogeneic biomaterials. After six months of healing, sockets grafted with both materials exhibited greater radiographic bone density, with significantly greater density observed in the xenograft group. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that the two biomaterials are comparable in their effectiveness at maintaining the dimensions of the alveolar ridge. However, the quality of the newly formed bone may differ depending on the type of biomaterial used.