-
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Jun 2024The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of pre-alveolar bonegraft (ABG) orthodontics with no orthodontic treatment for patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of pre-alveolar bone graft orthodontics for patients with non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of pre-alveolar bonegraft (ABG) orthodontics with no orthodontic treatment for patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate. All relevant studies from 1946 to October 30, 2022, were identified using several sources including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EPUB ahead of publications and non-indexed citations. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCT) were included.
POPULATION
Non-syndromic complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients who have had ABG surgery.
INTERVENTION
Orthodontics prior to ABG. Comparison: No orthodontic treatment prior to ABG.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
Successful eruption of permanent canines. All articles were screened for the title, abstract and full text independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. The quality assessment of RCT was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and the CCT was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Of the 904 studies retrieved in the search, one RCT and one CCT were included. Both studies were judged as high risk of bias. The results from one study showed a statistically significant increase in bone volume and decreased bone defect post-ABG in the orthodontic treatment group. However, there was no difference with respect to other variables. Both included studies were of low quality. There is not enough evidence to recommend orthodontic treatment pre-ABG for patients with complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate. Future high-quality studies are required to inform patients and clinicians about the effectiveness of pre-graft orthodontic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Cleft Palate; Cleft Lip; Alveolar Bone Grafting; Orthodontics, Corrective; Treatment Outcome; Bone Transplantation
PubMed: 38108550
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12744 -
Cureus Mar 2022An alveolar cleft is the most common congenital bone defect. This systematic review aimed to investigate the use of stem cells for alveolar cleft repair and summarize... (Review)
Review
An alveolar cleft is the most common congenital bone defect. This systematic review aimed to investigate the use of stem cells for alveolar cleft repair and summarize the outcomes of clinical research studies. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar were utilized to search the literature for relevant studies after administering specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search included articles that were published from 2011 to 2021 and specific keywords were used in the databases. The search was completed by two independent reviewers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Only four studies satisfied both the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. These studies investigated different aspects of bone reconstruction in the maxillary alveolar bone by stem cells, including cell types, clinical applications, biomaterial scaffolds, and follow-up period. The accumulated evidence in this systematic review is limited and insufficient to support the role of stem cell use in bone regeneration of maxillary alveolar bone defects. The outcome of using stem cells was studied only in 57 subjects from the four included studies. Although the noninvasive methods of isolating stem cells make them attractive resources for bone regeneration, more research is required in order to standardize and investigate stem cell therapy. This should be done beforehand in adults in less invasive procedures such as bone defect repair in dentistry prior to considering this type of therapy in this vulnerable patient population.
PubMed: 35425680
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23111 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Aug 2021To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft-tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid-buccal mucosal recession. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
After screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = -0.52 mm [95% CI -0.74 to -0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low).
CONCLUSION
BSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft-tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications.
Topics: Bone Substitutes; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34118175
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13014 -
Journal of the American Dental... Aug 2023Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.
Topics: Humans; Molar, Third; Acute Pain; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dry Socket; Postoperative Complications; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37500235
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2023.04.018 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Aug 2017Two focused questions were addressed within this systematic review. Q1) What is the effect of alveolar ridge preservation on linear and volumetric alveolar site... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Two focused questions were addressed within this systematic review. Q1) What is the effect of alveolar ridge preservation on linear and volumetric alveolar site dimensions, keratinised measurements, histological characteristics and patient-based outcomes when compared to unassisted socket healing. Q2) What is the size effect of these outcomes in three different types of intervention (guided bone regeneration, socket grafting and socket seal).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register LILACS, Web of Science) and hand-search was conducted up to June 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT); with unassisted socket healing as controls: were eligible in the analysis for Q1. RCTs, CCTs and large prospective case series with or without an unassisted socket healing as control group were eligible in the analysis for Q2.
RESULTS
Nine papers (8 RCTs and 1 CCTs) were included in the analysis for Q1 and 37 papers (29 RCTs, 7 CCTs and 1 case series) for Q2. The risk for bias was unclear or high in most of the studies. Q1: the standardised mean difference (SMD) in vertical mid-buccal bone height between ARP and a non-treated site was 0.739 mm (95% CI: 0.332 to 1.147). The SMD when proximal vertical bone height and horizontal bone width was compared was 0.796mm (95% CI: -1.228 to 0.364) and 1.198 mm (95% CI: -0.0374 to 2.433). Examination of ARP sites revealed significant variation in vital and trabecular bone percentages and keratinised tissue width and thickness. Adverse events were routinely reported, with three papers reporting a high level of complications in the test and control groups and two papers reporting greater risks associated with ARP. No studies reported on variables associated with the patient experience in either the test or the control group. Q2: A pooled effect reduction (PER) in mid-buccal alveolar ridge height of -0.467 mm (95% CI: -0.866 to -0.069) was recorded for GBR procedures and -0.157 mm (95% CI: -0.554 to 0.239) for socket grafting. A proximal vertical bone height reduction of -0.356 mm (95% CI: -0.490 to -0.222) was recorded for GBR, with a horizontal dimensional reduction of -1.45 mm (95% CI: -1.892 to -1.008) measured following GBR and -1.613 mm (95% CI: -1.989 to -1.238) for socket grafting procedures. Five papers reported on histological findings after ARP. Two papers indicated an increase in the width of the keratinised tissue following GBR, with two papers reporting a reduction in the thickness of the keratinised tissue following GBR. Histological examination revealed extensive variations in the treatment protocols and biomaterials materials used to evaluate extraction socket healing. GBR studies reported a variation in total bone formation of 47.9 ± 9.1% to 24.67 ± 15.92%. Post-operative complications were reported by 29 papers, with the most common findings soft tissue inflammation and infection.
CONCLUSION
ARP results in a significant reduction in the vertical bone dimensional change following tooth extraction when compared to unassisted socket healing. The reduction in horizontal alveolar bone dimensional change was found to be variable. No evidence was identified to clearly indicate the superior impact of a type of ARP intervention (GBR, socket filler and socket seal) on bone dimensional preservation, bone formation, keratinised tissue dimensions and patient complications.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Gingiva; Humans; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27458031
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12911 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Dec 2021Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique (SST) may maintain the buccal bone plate and soft tissue levels, however, the potential clinical benefits of SST... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique (SST) may maintain the buccal bone plate and soft tissue levels, however, the potential clinical benefits of SST lack strong scientific evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of SST on dimensional changes of hard tissues, esthetic outcomes, implant stability, complication, and implant failure rates.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate implant placement with and without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.
RESULTS
A total of 982 studies were identified, of which, seven RCTs with 206 immediately placed dental implants in 191 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in the changes in buccal bone plate width (mean difference (MD) -0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.15; p < 0.0001) and height (MD -0.52; 95% CI -0.85 to -0.18; p = 0.002) in favor of SST. The use of SST was also associated with significantly less changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and better pink esthetic score than immediately placing implants without SST. The differences in implant stability, complication and implant failure rates were not statistically significant between immediate implant placement with or without SST.
CONCLUSIONS
The short-term complication and implant failure rates following immediate implant placement with or without SST were comparable. The SST has short-term positive effects on the changes in width and height of buccal bone plate, peri-implant marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes. Further evidence from long-term RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
SST can reduce changes in buccal plate width and height and improve the soft tissue profile following immediate implant placement in esthetic zone.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34380176
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12812 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2015Peri-implant hard-tissue augmentation is a widely used clinical procedure. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peri-implant hard-tissue augmentation is a widely used clinical procedure.
AIM
The present review aimed to analyse the current literature regarding medium- and long-term data concerning the stability of peri-implant tissues after hard-tissue augmentation prior or immediately with implant placement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed using Medline (PubMed) databases detecting clinical studies focusing on hard- and soft-tissue stability around dental implants placed either in augmented alveolar ridges or simultaneously with peri-implant bone grafting. The search was limited to articles published between 1995 and December 2014, focusing on clinical studies with a prospective study design assessing peri-implant bone and soft tissue stability over time with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Recent publications were also searched manually to find any relevant studies that might have been missed using the search criteria noted above.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Since the outcome measures and methods, as well as types of grafts and implants used were so heterogeneous, the performance of meta-analysis was impossible. The highest level of evidence was achieved by randomized clinical trials.
CONCLUSION
Different hard-tissue augmentation procedures seem to show stable peri-implant tissues, although, up to now, long-term stability of the augmented buccal bone is assessed by only few studies. Further research should concentrate on combining three-dimensional radiographic data with non-invasive methods as digital surface measuring techniques or ultrasound evaluation.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 26385626
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12635 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Several factors affect dental implant osseointegration, including surgical issues, bone quality and quantity, and host-related factors, such as patients' nutritional...
Several factors affect dental implant osseointegration, including surgical issues, bone quality and quantity, and host-related factors, such as patients' nutritional status. Many micronutrients might play a key role in dental implant osseointegration by influencing some alveolar bone parameters, such as healing of the alveolus after tooth extraction. This scoping review aims to summarize the role of dietary supplements in optimizing osseointegration after implant insertion surgery. A technical expert panel (TEP) of 11 medical specialists with expertise in oral surgery, bone metabolism, nutrition, and orthopedic surgery performed the review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) model. The TEP identified micronutrients from the "European Union (EU) Register of nutrition and health claims made on foods" that have a relationship with bone and tooth health, and planned a PubMed search, selecting micronutrients previously identified as MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and adding to each of them the words "dental implants" and "osseointegration". The TEP identified 19 studies concerning vitamin D, magnesium, resveratrol, vitamin C, a mixture of calcium, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin D, and synthetic bone mineral. However, several micronutrients are non-authorized by the "EU Register on nutrition and health claims" for improving bone and/or tooth health. Our scoping review suggests a limited role of nutraceuticals in promoting osseointegration of dental implants, although, in some cases, such as for vitamin D deficiency, there is a clear link among their deficit, reduced osseointegration, and early implant failure, thus requiring an adequate supplementation.
Topics: Animals; Bone-Anchored Prosthesis; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Nutritional Status; Osseointegration; Prosthesis Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31968626
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010268 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Aug 2021The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes.
METHODS
A manual and electronic search (National Library of Medicine) was performed for controlled clinical trials, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was implant survival and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) (change), pink esthetic score (PES), mid-facial mucosal level (change), papilla index score, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 10 publications were included (7 randomized clinical trials and 3 controlled clinical trials). The results from the meta-analyses showed that survival rate was significantly lower in the IIP group compared to ARP group [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.14; 0.78); p = 0.01]. No significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding radiographic MBL, PES scores, or mid-facial mucosal level (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that IIP had lower survival rates and similar esthetic results when compared to ARP.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Clinicians should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each intervention to select the optimal timing of implant placement.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34100157
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03986-6 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Oct 2016The use of antibiotics to prevent dry socket and infection is a controversial but widespread practice. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The use of antibiotics to prevent dry socket and infection is a controversial but widespread practice. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of systemic antibiotics in reducing the frequencies of these complications after extraction.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the PRISMA statement, based on randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating systemic antibiotics to prevent dry socket and infection after third molar surgery. Databases were searched up to June 2015. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated with inverse variance-weighted, fixed-effect, or random-effect models.
RESULTS
We included 22 papers in the qualitative and 21 in the quantitative review (3304 extractions). Overall-RR was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.56; P < .0001); number needed to treat, 14 (95% CI 11-19). Penicillins-RR: 0.40 (95% CI 0.27-0.59). Nitroimidazoles-RR: 0.56 (95% CI 0.38-0.82). No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Systemic antibiotics significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and infection in third molar extraction.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 27499028
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.04.016