-
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 -
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 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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of... Dec 2016To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament... (Review)
Review
To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament as well as to the hard tissue such as alveolar bone and cementum. Topical hyaluronic acid (HA) has recently been recognized as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease in addition to its use to improve healing after dental procedures. The aim of our work was to systematically review the published literature about potential effects of HA as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease, in addition to its use to improve healing after common dental procedures. Relevant published studies were found in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid using a combined keyword search or medical subject headings. At the end of our study selection process, 25 relevant publications were included, three of them regarding gingivitis, 13 of them relating to chronic periodontitis, seven of them relating to dental surgery, including implant and sinus lift procedures, and the remaining three articles describing oral ulcers. Not only does topical administration of HA play a pivotal key role in the postoperative care of patients undergoing dental procedures, but positive results were also generally observed in all patients with chronic inflammatory gingival and periodontal disease and in patients with oral ulcers.
Topics: Animals; Chronic Disease; Dentistry; Gingivitis; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Inflammation; Periodontitis
PubMed: 27280412
DOI: 10.1177/0394632016652906 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until 8th of February, 2018 were included.
RESULTS
One comparative and four noncomparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both treatment modalities disclosed high survival rate of implants with few complications. High survival rate of prosthesis, implant stability values, limited peri-implant marginal bone loss and gain in maxillary alveolar ridge width were reported with the split-crest technique. Patient-reported outcome measure and length of patient treatment time was not assessed in any of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The split-crest technique seems to be useful for horizontal augmentation of maxillary alveolar deficiencies with high survival rate of prosthesis and implants. However, further long-term randomized controlled trials with larger patient sample as well as assessment of patient-reported outcome measures and patient treatment time are needed before well-defined conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.
PubMed: 32158526
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10402 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence). The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Eugenol; Humans; Mouthwashes; Pain; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 36156769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3 -
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2022The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review...
BACKGROUND
The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review aimed to analyze the effect of autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), on the outcomes of ARP/ARR and ISD therapy (i.e., alveolar ridge augmentation [ARA] and maxillary sinus floor augmentation [MSFA]).
METHODS
An electronic search for eligible articles published from January 2000 to October 2021 was conducted. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of ABPs, EMD, rhBMP-2, and rhPDGF-BB for ARP/ARR and ISD were included according to pre-established eligibility criteria. Data on linear and volumetric dimensional changes, histomorphometric findings, and a variety of secondary outcomes (i.e., clinical, implant-related, digital imaging, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) were extracted and critically analyzed. Risk of bias assessment of the selected investigations was also conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 39 articles were included and analyzed qualitatively. Due to the high level of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative analyses were not feasible. Most studies in the topic of ARP/ARR revealed that the use of biologics rendered similar results compared with conventional protocols. However, when juxtaposed to unassisted healing or socket filling using collagen sponges, the application of biologics did contribute to attenuate post-extraction alveolar ridge atrophy in most investigations. Additionally, histomorphometric outcomes were positively influenced by the application of biologics. The use of biologics in ARA interventions did not yield superior clinical or radiographic outcomes compared with control therapies. Nevertheless, ABPs enhanced new bone formation and reduced the likelihood of early wound dehiscence. The use of biologics in MSFA interventions did not translate into superior clinical or radiographic outcomes. It was observed, though, that the use of some biologics may promote bone formation during earlier stages of healing. Only four clinical investigations evaluated PROMs and reported a modest beneficial impact of the use of biologics on pain and swelling. No severe adverse events in association with the use of the biologics evaluated in this systematic review were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Outcomes of therapy after post-extraction ARP/ARR and ARA in edentulous ridges were comparable among different therapeutic modalities evaluated in this systematic review. Nevertheless, the use of biologics (i.e., PRF, EMD, rhPDGF-BB, and rhBMP-2) in combination with a bone graft material generally results into superior histomorphometric outcomes and faster wound healing compared with control groups.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Biological Products; Becaplermin; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Alveolar Process; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 35841608
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0069