Aim: To investigate whether transmucosal healing is as effective as submerged healing in terms of buccal bone regeneration when guided bone regeneration (GBR) is performed simultaneously with implant placement.
Materials and methods: In six dogs, buccal dehiscence defects were created in the edentulous mandibular ridge, sized 5 × 5 × 3 mm (length × height × depth). In each defect, a bone-level implant was placed, and four experimental groups were randomly assigned as follows: (i) transmucosal healing with GBR (T-GBR), (ii) transmucosal healing without GBR (T-control), (iii) submerged healing with GBR (S-GBR) and (iv) submerged healing without GBR (S-control). Data analyses were based on histological slides 5 months after implant placement.
Results: The T-GBR group showed significant differences compared to the control groups regarding defect height resolution, buccal bone thickness and mineralized tissue area (p < .05), but showed no significant differences when compared with the S-GBR group (p > .05).
Conclusions: The mode of healing (transmucosal vs. submerged) does not influence bone regeneration at implant sites. The clinician may therefore choose the approach based on further clinical and patient-specific parameters.
Keywords: animal experiment; guided bone regeneration; implant placement; submerged healing; transmucosal healing.
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.