-
Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Dental Research Oct 2014Alveolar ridge preservation strategies are indicated to minimize the loss of ridge volume that typically follows tooth extraction. The aim of this systematic review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Alveolar ridge preservation strategies are indicated to minimize the loss of ridge volume that typically follows tooth extraction. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effect that socket filling with a bone grafting material has on the prevention of postextraction alveolar ridge volume loss as compared with tooth extraction alone in nonmolar teeth. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Literature screening and article selection were conducted by 3 independent reviewers, while data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcome measures were mean horizontal ridge changes (buccolingual) and vertical ridge changes (midbuccal, midlingual, mesial, and distal). The influence of several variables of interest (i.e., flap elevation, membrane usage, and type of bone substitute employed) on the outcomes of ridge preservation therapy was explored via subgroup analyses. We found that alveolar ridge preservation is effective in limiting physiologic ridge reduction as compared with tooth extraction alone. The clinical magnitude of the effect was 1.89 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 2.36; p < .001) in terms of buccolingual width, 2.07 mm (95% CI: 1.03, 3.12; p < .001) for midbuccal height, 1.18 mm (95% CI: 0.17, 2.19; p = .022) for midlingual height, 0.48 mm (95% CI: 0.18, 0.79; p = .002) for mesial height, and 0.24 mm (95% CI: -0.05, 0.53; p = .102) for distal height changes. Subgroup analyses revealed that flap elevation, the usage of a membrane, and the application of a xenograft or an allograft are associated with superior outcomes, particularly on midbuccal and midlingual height preservation.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Membranes, Artificial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Flaps; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 24966231
DOI: 10.1177/0022034514541127 -
Journal of Periodontology May 2019The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.
METHODS
An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30395355
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2019The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of various techniques used for vertical ridge augmentation on clinical vertical bone gain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of various techniques used for vertical ridge augmentation on clinical vertical bone gain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: "In patients with vertical alveolar ridge deficiencies, how effective are different augmentation procedures for clinical alveolar ridge gain?" Randomized and controlled clinical trials and prospective and retrospective case series were included, and meta-analyses were performed to evaluate vertical bone gain based on the type of procedure and to compare bone gains in controlled studies.
RESULTS
Thirty-six publications were included. Results demonstrated a significant vertical bone gain for all treatment approaches (n = 33; weighted mean effect = 4.16 mm; 95% CI 3.72-4.61; p < 0.001). Clinical vertical bone gain and complications rate varied among the different procedures, with a weighted mean gain of 8.04 mm and complications rate of 47.3% for distraction osteogenesis, 4.18 mm and 12.1% for guided bone regeneration (GBR), and 3.46 mm and 23.9% for bone blocks. In comparative studies, GBR achieved a significant greater bone gain when compared to bone blocks (n = 3; weighted mean difference = 1.34 mm; 95% CI 0.76-1.91; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Vertical ridge augmentation is a feasible and effective therapy for the reconstruction of deficient alveolar ridges, although complications are common.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30667522
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13061 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2018The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate different methods for guided bone regeneration using collagen membranes and particulate grafting materials in implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate different methods for guided bone regeneration using collagen membranes and particulate grafting materials in implant dentistry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic database search and hand search were performed for all relevant articles dealing with guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry published between 1980 and 2014. Only randomized clinical trials and prospective controlled studies were included. The primary outcomes of interest were survival rates, membrane exposure rates, bone gain/defect reduction, and vertical bone loss at follow-up. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of presence of membrane cross-linking, timing of implant placement, membrane fixation, and decortication.
RESULTS
Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Implant survival rates were similar between simultaneous and subsequent implant placement. The membrane exposure rate of cross-linked membranes was approximately 30% higher than that of non-cross-linked membranes. The use of anorganic bovine bone mineral led to sufficient newly regenerated bone and high implant survival rates. Membrane fixation was weakly associated with increased vertical bone gain, and decortication led to higher horizontal bone gain (defect depth).
CONCLUSION
Guided bone regeneration with particulate graft materials and resorbable collagen membranes is an effective technique for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. Because implant survival rates for simultaneous and subsequent implant placement were similar, simultaneous implant placement is recommended when possible. Additional techniques like membrane fixation and decortication may represent beneficial implications for the practice.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Animals; Bone Regeneration; Bone Transplantation; Cattle; Collagen; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Membranes, Artificial; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 28938035
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5461 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2019The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared to tooth extraction alone in function of relevant clinical, radiographic and patient-centred outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this review was conducted by two independent examiners. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these RCTs were collated into evidence tables. Endpoints of interest included clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Interventions reported in the selected studies were clustered into ARP treatment modalities. All these different ARP modalities were compared to the control therapy (i.e. spontaneous socket healing) in each individual study after a 3- to 6-month healing period. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted if at least two studies within the same ARP treatment modality reported on the same outcome of interest.
RESULTS
A combined database, grey literature and hand search identified 3,003 records, of which 1,789 were screened after removal of duplicates. Following the application of the eligibility criteria, 25 articles for a total of 22 RCTs were included in the final selection, from which nine different ARP treatment modalities were identified: (a) bovine bone particles (BBP) + socket sealing (SS), (b) construct made of 90% bovine bone granules and 10% porcine collagen (BBG/PC) + SS, (c) cortico-cancellous porcine bone particles (CPBP) + SS, (d) allograft particles (AG) + SS, (e) alloplastic material (AP) with or without SS, (f) autologous blood-derived products (ABDP), (g) cell therapy (CTh), (h) recombinant morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and (i) SS alone. Quantitative analyses for different ARP modalities, all of which involved socket grafting with a bone substitute, were feasible for a subset of clinical and radiographic outcomes. The results of a pooled quantitative analysis revealed that ARP via socket grafting (ARP-SG), as compared to tooth extraction alone, prevents horizontal (M = 1.99 mm; 95% CI 1.54-2.44; p < 0.00001), vertical mid-buccal (M = 1.72 mm; 95% CI 0.96-2.48; p < 0.00001) and vertical mid-lingual (M = 1.16 mm; 95% CI 0.81-1.52; p < 0.00001) bone resorption. Whether there is a superior ARP or SS approach could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence. However, the application of particulate xenogenic or allogenic materials covered with an absorbable collagen membrane or a rapidly absorbable collagen sponge was associated with the most favourable outcomes in terms of horizontal ridge preservation. A specific quantitative analysis showed that sites presenting a buccal bone thickness >1.0 mm exhibited more favourable ridge preservation outcomes (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 3.2 mm), as compared to sites with a thinner buccal wall (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 1.29 mm). The effect of other local and systemic factors could not be assessed as part of the quantitative analyses. PROMs were comparable between the experimental and the control group in two studies involving the use of ABDP. The effect of other ARP modalities on PROMs could not be investigated, as these outcomes were not reported in any other clinical trial included in this study.
CONCLUSION
Alveolar ridge preservation is an effective therapy to attenuate the dimensional reduction of the alveolar ridge that normally takes place after tooth extraction.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Animals; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Cattle; Humans; Swine; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 30623987
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13057 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2022This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Both electronic and manual searches were performed for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies consisting of at least 10 cases per group and a follow-up of at least 1-year in duration. The primary outcome was the implant success rate and secondary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES) and patient reported outcomes consisting of complications and satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were included (8 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies). This review contained 456 implants placed after ARP and 459 implants placed through IIP. The results from this meta-analysis showed that the success rates of implants placed through ARP protocol (98.68%) was significantly higher than that of implants placed through IIP protocol (95.21%) (RR = 1.03; 95% CI [1.01; 1.06]; P = .008; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
The results from this meta-analysis and systematic review showed that implants placed through ARP protocol may demonstrate higher success rates compared to implants placed through IIP.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36162892
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101734 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, which grafting material best attenuates horizontal and vertical ridge resorption, as compared to spontaneous healing?, and (b) which material(s) promotes bone formation in the extraction socket?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were screened in duplicate for RCTs up to March 2021. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Primary outcomes were ridge horizontal and vertical dimension changes and new bone formation into the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes and compare different grafting materials.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets. Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage. According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation.
CONCLUSIONS
Alveolar ridge preservation is effective in reducing both horizontal and vertical shrinkage, as compared to untreated sockets. NMA confirmed the consistency of XG for ridge dimension preservation, but several other materials and combinations like AG, Bio + AG, and AG + alloplasts, produced even better results than XG in clinical comparisons. Further evidence is needed to confirm the value of such alternatives to XG for alveolar ridge preservation. Bio + AG performed better than the other materials in preserving ridge dimension and platelet concentrates in new bone formation. However, alloplasts, xenografts, and AG + AP performed consistently good in majority of the clinical comparisons.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
XG and Bio + AG demonstrated significantly better performance in minimizing post-extraction horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes as compared with other grafting materials or with spontaneous healing, even if they presented the worst histological outcomes. Allografts and other materials or combinations (AG + AP) presented similar performances while spontaneous healing ranked last.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34826029
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04248-1 -
International Journal of Implant... May 2022Placement of dental implants has evolved to be an advantageous treatment option for rehabilitation of the fully or partially edentulous mandible. In case of extensive... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Placement of dental implants has evolved to be an advantageous treatment option for rehabilitation of the fully or partially edentulous mandible. In case of extensive horizontal bone resorption, the bone volume needs to be augmented prior to or during implant placement in order to obtain dental rehabilitation and maximize implant survival and success.
METHODS
Our aim was to systematically review the available data on lateral augmentation techniques in the horizontally compromised mandible considering all grafting protocols using xenogeneic, synthetic, or allogeneic material. A computerized and manual literature search was performed for clinical studies (published January 1995 to March 2021).
RESULTS
Eight studies ultimately met the inclusion criteria comprising a total of 276 procedures of xenogeneic, allogeneic, or autogenous bone graft applications in horizontal ridge defects. Particulate materials as well as bone blocks were used as grafts with a mean follow-up of 26.0 months across all included studies. Outcome measures, approaches and materials varied from study to study. A gain of horizontal bone width of the mandible with a mean of 4.8 mm was observed in seven of eight studies. All but one study, reported low bone graft failure rates of 4.4% in average.
CONCLUSIONS
Only limited data are available on the impact of different horizontal augmentation strategies in the mandible. The results show outcomes for xenogeneic as well as autologous bone materials for horizontal ridge augmentation of the lower jaw. The use of allogeneic bone-block grafts in combination with resorbable barrier membranes must be re-evaluated. Randomized controlled clinical trials are largely missing.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Resorption; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Mandible
PubMed: 35532820
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00421-7 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Mar 2018To review the dental literature in terms of soft tissue augmentation procedures and their influence on peri-implant health or disease in partially and fully edentulous... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the dental literature in terms of soft tissue augmentation procedures and their influence on peri-implant health or disease in partially and fully edentulous patients.
METHODS
A MEDLINE search from 1966 to 2016 was performed to identify controlled clinical studies comparing soft tissue grafting versus no soft tissue grafting (maintenance) or two types of soft tissue grafting procedures at implant sites. The soft tissue grafting procedures included either an increase of keratinized tissue or an increase of the thickness of the peri-implant mucosa. Studies reporting on the peri-implant tissue health, as assessed by bleeding or gingival indices, were included in the review. The search was complemented by an additional hand search of all selected full-text articles and reviews published between 2011 and 2016. The initial search yielded a total number of 2,823 studies. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria (finally included: four studies on gain of keratinized tissue; six studies on gain of mucosal thickness) and quality assessments conducted. Meta-analyses were applied whenever possible.
RESULTS
Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of keratinized tissue resulted in a significantly greater improvement of gingival index values compared to maintenance groups (with or without keratinized tissue) [n = 2; WMD = 0.863; 95% CI (0.658; 1.067); p < .001]. For final marginal bone levels, statistically significant differences were calculated in favor of an apically positioned flap (APF) plus autogenous grafts versus all control treatments (APF alone; APF plus a collagen matrix; maintenance without intervention [with or without residual keratinized tissue]) [n = 4; WMD = -0.175 mm; 95% CI: (-0.313; -0.037); p = .013]. Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of mucosal thickness did not result in significant improvements in bleeding indices over time, but in significantly less marginal bone loss over time [WMD = 0.110; 95% CI: 0.067; 0.154; p < .001] and a borderline significance for marginal bone levels at the study endpoints compared to sites without grafting.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this review, it was concluded that soft tissue grafting procedures result in more favorable peri-implant health: (i) for gain of keratinized mucosa using autogenous grafts with a greater improvement of bleeding indices and higher marginal bone levels; (ii) for gain of mucosal thickness using autogenous grafts with significantly less marginal bone loss.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Collagen; Connective Tissue; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque Index; Gingiva; Gingivoplasty; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Mouth Mucosa; Periodontal Index; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 29498129
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13114 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2022Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the...
PURPOSE
Dental implant therapy is a common clinical treatment for missing teeth. However, the esthetic result is not as satisfactory as expected in some cases, especially in the anterior maxillary area. Poor esthetic results are caused by inadequate preparation of the hard and soft tissues in this area before treatment. The socket shield technique may be an alternative for a desirable esthetic outcome in dental implant treatments.
STUDY SELECTION
In the present systematic review, PubMed-Medline, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect were searched for clinical studies published from January 2000 to December 2018.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included, comprising one randomized controlled trial, two cohort studies, 14 clinical human case reports, and three retrospective case series. In total, 288 patients treated with the socket shield technique with immediate implant placement and follow-up between 3-60 months after placement were included. A quality assessment showed that 12 of the 20 included studies were of good quality. Twenty-six of the 274 (9.5%) cases developed complications or adverse effects related to the socket shield technique. Most studies reported implant survival without the complications (90.5%); most of the cases that were followed up for more than 12 months after implant placement achieved a good esthetic appearance. The failure rate was low without the complications, although there were some failures due to failed implant osseointegration, socket shield mobility and infection, socket shield exposure, socket shield migration, and apical root resorption.
CONCLUSIONS
The socket shield technique can be used in dental implant treatment, but it remains difficult to predict the long-term success of this technique until high-quality evidence becomes available.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33692284
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00054