-
British Dental Journal Oct 2020
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 33097888
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-2292-1 -
International Journal of Oral and... Feb 2022The aim of this overview was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation after a tooth... (Review)
Review
The aim of this overview was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation after a tooth extraction. During March 2020, two independent reviewers performed an electronic search of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant systematic reviews including randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation. A manual search of articles in renowned journals was also conducted. The methodological quality of the included reviews was determined using the AMSTAR-2 tool. From the 53 initially retrieved studies, 11 were finally included: three systematic reviews and eight systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included reviews was low or critically low. Higher quality clinical studies should be conducted prior to performing further reviews and these should meet the methodological requirements that are fundamental to this type of research.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Humans; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34272149
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.06.002 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2018Alveolar ridge preservation procedures have been advocated to minimize postextraction dimensional loss. There is a need for systematic analyses of clinical factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures have been advocated to minimize postextraction dimensional loss. There is a need for systematic analyses of clinical factors affecting the outcomes of these procedures in order to improve their clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation procedures in terms of hard tissue dimensional changes and to determine clinical factors affecting outcomes of these procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Studies comparing alveolar ridge preservation procedures with tooth extraction alone that reported quantitative outcomes for hard tissue dimensional changes were included. The primary outcome variable was horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone. Subgroup analyses evaluated effects of wound closure, flap elevation, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, use of growth factors, socket morphology, and the position of teeth on outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included, and quantitative analyses were performed for seven outcome variables. Significant differences between alveolar ridge preservation and control sites were found for six outcome variables, all favoring alveolar ridge preservation procedures. The magnitude of effect for the primary outcome variable (horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone) was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.44, 2.28; P < .001). This magnitude of effect for the primary variable (as determined by subgroup analysis) was also significantly affected by type of wound closure (P = .033), type of grafting materials (P = .001), use of barrier membranes (P = .006), use of growth factors (P = .003), and socket morphology (P < .001).
CONCLUSION
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures are effective in minimizing postextraction hard tissue dimensional loss. The outcomes of these procedures are affected by morphology of extraction sockets, type of wound closure, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, and use of growth factors.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Dental Care; Humans; Surgical Flaps; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 30231083
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6399 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2023The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Process; Tooth Socket; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 35913046
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12441 -
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 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2023To evaluate the effects of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique on gained horizontal width of the alveolar ridge and implant survival rate. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique on gained horizontal width of the alveolar ridge and implant survival rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic searching was performed in six electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SIGLE) from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2023. Two authors performed study selection, data extraction, and study qualities (ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0) independently. Meta-analysis was performed by Comprehensive meta-analysis 3.0.
RESULTS
24 included studies were observational, and 1 study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). 14 studies investigated the gained width of the horizontal alveolar ridge, and 17 examined the implants' survival rate. For assessment of risk of bias, nine studies were high risk of bias and 16 studies were moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled gained alveolar ridge width was 3.348 mm (95%CI: 4.163 mm, 2.533 mm), and the implant survival rate was 98.1% (95%CI: 98.9%, 96.9%). Seven studies showed seven different complications including exposure, infection, bad split, dehiscence, fracture, paresthesia and soft tissue retraction.
CONCLUSION
Recent ARS technique seems to be an effective method of bone augmentation with enough gained width and a high implant survival rate. Further long-term and RCTs research remains needed to enhance the study quality.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The ARS technique could generate sufficient bone volume, and implants had a high-level survival rate. Therefore, ARS has been proposed to be a reliable horizontal bone augmentation technique that creates good conditions for the implantation of narrow alveolar crests.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Alveolar Process; Bone Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37986181
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03643-2 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2022Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures can limit bone changes following tooth extraction. However, the role of ARP in periodontally compromised socket lacks strong... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures can limit bone changes following tooth extraction. However, the role of ARP in periodontally compromised socket lacks strong scientific evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised teeth in comparison with extraction alone in terms of hard tissue changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, and patient-reported outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ARP in periodontally compromised sockets with spontaneous socket healing. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Five studies with 134 extraction sockets in 126 participants were included. Of these, ARP was performed in 77 sites, while the remaining sites were intentionally left to heal without any ARP treatment. The follow-up time varied between 6 and 12 months. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in ridge height (mean difference (MD) -0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to -0.47; p = .0001) and bone volume (MD -38.70; 95% CI -52.17 to -25.24; p < .0001) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised tooth was also associated with significantly less need for additional bone grafting at the time of implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised teeth may have short-term positive effects on alveolar ridge height and bone volume and minimize the need for additional augmentation procedures. However, the evidence is of very low to low certainty.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 35818637
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13975 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Aug 2023The aim of the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on dimensional... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on dimensional alterations after tooth extraction, based on clinical measurements.
BACKGROUND
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a common procedure in every day clinical practice, when dental implants are involved in treatment planning. In ARP procedures, a bone grafting material is combined with a socket sealing (SS) material in order to compensate the alveolar ridge dimensional alterations after tooth extraction. Xenograft and allograft are the most frequently used bone grafts in ARP, while free gingival graft (FGG), collagen membrane, and collagen sponge (CS) usually applied as SS materials. The evidence comparing xenograft and allograft directly in ARP procedure is scarce. In addition, FGG is usually combined with xenograft as SS material, while the evidence combing allograft with FGG is absent. Moreover, CS could probably be an alternative choice in ARP as SS material, since it has been used in previous studies but more clinical trials are required to evaluate its effectiveness.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-one patients were randomly assigned in four treatment groups: (A) freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) covered with collagen sponge (CS), (B) FDBA covered with free gingival graft (FGG), (C) demineralized bovine bone mineral xenograft (DBBM) covered with FGG, and (D) FGG alone. Clinical measurements were performed immediately after tooth extraction and 4 months later. The related outcomes pertained to both vertical and horizontal assessment of bone loss.
RESULTS
Overall, groups A, B, and C presented significantly less vertical and horizontal bone resorption compared to group D. No statistically significant difference was observed between allograft and xenograft, except for the vertical bone resorption at the buccal central site, where xenograft showed marginally statistically significantly reduced bone loss compared to allograft (group C vs group B: adjusted β coef: 1.07 mm; 95%CI: 0.01, 2.10; p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in hard tissue dimensions when CS and FGG were applied over FDBA.
CONCLUSIONS
No differences between FDBA and DBBM could practically be confirmed. In addition, CS and FGG were equally effective socket sealing materials when combined with FDBA, regarding bone resorption. More RCTs are needed to compare the histological differences between FDBA and DBBM and the effect of CS and FGG on soft tissue dimensional changes.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Xenograft and allograft were equally efficient in ARP 4 months after tooth extraction in horizontal level. Xenograft maintained the mid-buccal site of the socket marginally better than the allograft, in vertical level. FGG and CS were equally efficient as SS materials regarding the hard tissue dimensional alterations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinical trial registration Number: NCT04934813 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Topics: Humans; Animals; Cattle; Tooth Socket; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Bone Loss; Collagen; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 37227497
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05068-1 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2019The aim of the present review was to describe the studies produced in Latin America that contributed to the elucidation of the effect of tooth extraction with and... (Review)
Review
The aim of the present review was to describe the studies produced in Latin America that contributed to the elucidation of the effect of tooth extraction with and without immediate implant installation. An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Scielo, Lilacs, and Embase to include clinical and experimental (animal) studies on immediate implants. The studies selected had to fulfill the following inclusion criteria: (i) to present clinical and/or histological data on socket healing with or without immediate implant installation; (ii) to be approved by a Latin American Ethic Committee or comparable; and (iii) to include at least one author from a Latin American institution or to be conducted in a Latin America institution. Latin American studies that fulfilled these criteria demonstrated that immediate implant installation was conducive for predictable osseointegration and high survival rates but failed to prevent bone modeling and dimensional reduction of the alveolar ridge. In addition, it was also shown that regenerative approaches, including hard and soft tissue grafts at the time of immediate implant placement, may be beneficial to compensate for the alveolar ridge reduction. Regenerative approaches immediately after tooth extraction may decrease the amount of dimension reduction of the alveolar ridge.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Animals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Osseointegration; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30892762
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12252 -
Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews Feb 2022Clinically, orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) across the narrow alveolar ridge area inevitably entails some adverse reactions such as limited movement and periodontal... (Review)
Review
Clinically, orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) across the narrow alveolar ridge area inevitably entails some adverse reactions such as limited movement and periodontal tissue damage. Hence, it is essential to reconstruct the morphology of the alveolar crest before the tooth movement. Unlike the routine reconstruction of alveolar ridge in the field of implant, the orthodontic practices are distinctive, which require dental movement across the constructed alveolar ridge with safety and stability. Herein, we addressed the pros and cons of reconstruction of the defected orthodontic alveolar ridge with different bone graft materials. Attention is also paid to other factors such as the postgraft initiation time of OTM that can substantially influence the bone reconstruction and tooth movement effect. Rather, considering the lack of a unified standard in orthodontic clinics related to bone reconstruction for OTM, we provide some recommendations and guidance for OTM through alveolar ridge defect area. Impact statement Re-establishment of the atrophic alveolar bone before orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) is important for safe and efficient tooth movement. The most prevalent approach to regenerate alveolar bone in the defect rests on the application of bone grafts. This review evaluates the application of different bone graft materials to the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects, and provides some recommendations and guidance for OTM through alveolar ridge defect area.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 33307972
DOI: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2020.0212