# Evaluation of a Novel Bioresorbable Device for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vitro CBCT Study on Pig Jaws

## TL;DR

A new bioresorbable device for guided bone regeneration was tested in pig jaws and found to be faster and easier to use than traditional methods.

## Contribution

A novel bioresorbable device was evaluated for guided bone regeneration, showing improved procedural efficiency.

## Key findings

- The device-based GBR procedure was significantly faster than the L-shaped DBBM-C method.
- The device-based GBR procedure was significantly less difficult for clinicians compared to the L-shaped DBBM-C method.
- Both methods resulted in similar horizontal thickness of bone augmentation at the implant site.

## Abstract

To compare the volume stability of guided bone regeneration (GBR) on peri-implant bone dehiscence defects during flap closure using a novel bioresorbable device with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) or an L-shaped DBBM with 10% collagen (DBBM-C).

A bioresorbable device was designed and printed using a medical-grade polyglycolide-colactide copolymer (PGLA). Twenty peri-implant box-shaped bone defects were created in 10 pig mandibles. GBR procedures were performed with: device (device + DBBM + collagen membrane) or L-shape (L-shaped DBBM-C + collagen membrane + fixation pins). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were carried out prior and after wound closure. The horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder, procedure duration, and difficulty of each GBR procedure were recorded.

No statistically significant differences for the horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder were obtained (p=0.8652). For the device, the median measured 2.35 mm (first quartile [Q1]: 2.03; third quartile [Q3]: 2.68) and and for L-shape it was 3.05 mm (Q1:2.48; Q3:3.23). The amount of time for the procedure was statistically significantly lower with 149.5 s using the device (Q1:127.25; Q3:160.5) compared to 206.5 s (Q1:198.75; Q3:236.75) using L-shape (p=0.0039). Difficulty was statistically significantly lower for the device with 2 (Q1:1; Q3:3) compared to 5 (Q1:4; Q3:5.25) for L-shape (p=0.0020).

GBR with the device in combination with DBBM and a collagen membrane led to a similar amount of horizontal thickness of the augmentation as an L-shaped DBBM-C with a collagen membrane and fixation pins. The procedure with the device was significantly faster and easier for the clinician.