-
Polymers Apr 2021Alveolar bone ridge resorption occurred after natural teeth loss and it can restrict the possibility of dental implants placement. The use of bone regenerative... (Review)
Review
Alveolar bone ridge resorption occurred after natural teeth loss and it can restrict the possibility of dental implants placement. The use of bone regenerative procedures is frequently required. The existing evidence regarding the efficacy of horizontal bone ridge augmentation trough guided bone regeneration (GBR) using polymeric membranes was stated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Screening process was done using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE by PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Oral Health. Included articles were randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (2). If I2 > 50% a random-effects model was applied. It was found that the mean of horizontal bone gain was 3.95 mm, ranging from 3.19 to 4.70 mm (confidence interval 95%). Heterogeneity is I2 = 99% (confidence interval 95%) and significance of the random-effects model was < 0.001. The complications rate was 8.4% and membrane exposure was the most frequent. Through this study, we were able to conclude that the existing scientific evidence suggests that GBR using polymeric membranes is a predictable technique for achieving horizontal bone augmentation, thus, permitting a proper further implant placement.
PubMed: 33917475
DOI: 10.3390/polym13071172 -
Annals of Anatomy = Anatomischer... Feb 2023This review aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of autogenous particulated dentin (APD) used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), evaluating volume gain,...
PURPOSE
This review aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of autogenous particulated dentin (APD) used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), evaluating volume gain, histologic/histomorphometric data, and associated complications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). An automated search was made in four databases (Medline/Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) supplemented by a manual search for relevant clinical articles published before March 10th, 2022. The review included human studies of at least four patients in which extraction and subsequent ARP were performed in a single surgery. Both comparative studies and studies that assessed ARP with APD exclusively were admitted. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane bias assessment tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool.
RESULTS
Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for descriptive analysis, with a total of 215 patients, and 337 alveoli preserved by APD, spontaneous healing (blood clot), or other bone substitutes, obtaining comparatively less vertical and horizontal resorption when APD was used.
CONCLUSIONS
After dental extraction, autogenous dentin was effective in terms of volume maintenance, showing promising results in histologic/histomorphometric analysis, and a low complication rate. Nevertheless, few comparative studies with comparable parameters have been published and so more research providing long-term data is needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Bone Substitutes; Minerals; Alveolar Process; Dentin; Tooth Socket; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 36396018
DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2022.152024 -
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 -
International Journal of Implant... Dec 2022To assess the dimensional establishment of a bony envelope after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in order to estimate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the dimensional establishment of a bony envelope after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in order to estimate the surgical feasibility of standard diameter implants placement without any additional augmentation methods.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched for suitable titles and abstracts using PICO elements. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising at least ten systemically healthy patients; test groups comprised placement of (collagenated) DBBM w/o membrane and control groups of no grafting, respectively. Selected abstracts were checked regarding their suitability, followed by full-text screening and subsequent statistical data analysis. Probabilities and number needed to treat (NNT) for implant placement without any further need of bone graft were calculated.
RESULTS
The initial database search identified 2583 studies. Finally, nine studies with a total of 177 implants placed after ARP with DBBM and 130 implants after SH were included for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation. A mean difference of 1.13 mm in ridge width in favour of ARP with DBBM could be calculated throughout all included studies (95% CI 0.28-1.98, t2 = 1-1063, I2 = 68.0%, p < 0.01). Probabilities for implant placement with 2 mm surrounding bone requiring theoretically no further bone augmentation ranged from 6 to 19% depending on implant diameter (3.25: 19%, RD = 0.19, C = 0.06-0.32, p < 0.01/4.0: 14%, RD = 0.14, C = 0.05-0.23, p < 0.01/5.0: 6%, RD = 0.06, C = 0.00-0.12, p = 0.06).
CONCLUSION
ARP employing DBBM reduces ridge shrinkage on average by 1.13 mm and improves the possibility to place standard diameter implants with up to 2 mm circumferential bone housing; however, no ARP would have been necessary or additional augmentative bone interventions are still required in 4 out of 5 cases.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Humans; Alveolar Process; Health Status; Dental Implants; Bone Resorption; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 36477662
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00453-z -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2014Alveolar bone regeneration by means of titanium meshes is a widespread procedure, however to date, only few relevant studies were reported in literature concerning this... (Review)
Review
Alveolar bone regeneration by means of titanium meshes is a widespread procedure, however to date, only few relevant studies were reported in literature concerning this technique. Consequently, the aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the reliability of the titanium mesh as a barrier, in conjunction with horizontal and vertical ridge reconstruction for implant placement purposes. A total of 17 articles complying with the inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. Three outcome variables were defined: a) horizontal and vertical bone regeneration obtained, b) complication rate, defined as the percentage of membrane exposures and c) evaluation of implant survival, success and failure rate.In regards to the vertical regeneration the mean was 4.91 mm (range: 2.56 - 8.6), while a mean of 4.36 mm (range: 3.75 - 5.65) was calculated for horizontal reconstruction.Considering the exposure rate, a mean of 16.1% was found, nevertheless, implant placement were placed in almost all of the sites. A mean success rate of 89,9%, a mean survival rate of 100% and a failure rate of 0% emerged from the data evaluation. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data, however the final results were comparable with those reported in case of bone regeneration obtained through other types of non-resorbable membranes. An advantage in favour of the titanium mesh was found in terms of bone loss after exposure, as implant placement was not jeopardized in almost all of the cases. It could be deduced that titanium meshes represented a reliable solution for alveolar ridge reconstruction. The clinical studies currently available in literature have shown the predictability of this technique in both lateral and vertical bone regeneration.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Surgical Mesh; Titanium
PubMed: 25350597
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.19998 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022We aimed to compare the relationship between the buccal and lingual positions of the inferior alveolar nerve canal (IAC) relative to the lower third molar (LM3) and the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We aimed to compare the relationship between the buccal and lingual positions of the inferior alveolar nerve canal (IAC) relative to the lower third molar (LM3) and the rate of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Journals@Ovid. No language or publication status restrictions were set. The publication year was set from 2009 to 2021. The process of meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager software (Cochrane Collaboration).
RESULTS
A total of 1063 articles were initially searched and full texts of 53 articles were read, and 11 satisfactory articles were found. There was a statistical difference between the rate of IAN injury and the lingual position and buccal position of the IAC relative to the LM3 roots (OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 2.11 to 11.62; = 0.0002), with high heterogeneity ( = 0.001, I = 65%).
CONCLUSION
A statistical difference was found in the rate of IAN injury between cases where the IAC was positioned buccally and lingually of the LM3 roots. The IAC was at a relatively higher risk of damage in third molar extraction when it was located on the lingual position of the LM3 roots.
PubMed: 36141394
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10091782 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2022The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current knowledge of implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate the current knowledge of implant treatment outcome following lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft compared with autogenous bone block graft prior to implant placement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through December 20, 2021. Comparative and non-comparative studies assessing lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft were included. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE system.
RESULTS
One comparative study characterized by low grade and two non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant difference in short-term implant survival, health status of the peri-implant tissue or frequency of complications between the two treatment modalities was observed. Postoperative dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge width were significant diminished with tooth block compared with bone block (P = 0.0029). Consequently, the gain in alveolar ridge width was significantly higher with tooth block, after 26 weeks (P = 0.014). However, a higher frequency of short-term peri-implant mucositis was observed with tooth block.
CONCLUSIONS
Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with tooth block seems to be a suitable alternative to bone block. However, results of the present systematic review are based on short-term studies involving small patient samples. Further long-term randomized controlled trials are therefore needed before definite conclusions can be provided about the beneficial use of tooth block compared with bone block.
PubMed: 35574210
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2022.13101 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional changes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were performed, in addition to a manual search through all periodontics and implantology-related journals, up to December 2018. Inverse variance weighted means were calculated for all the treatment arms of the included trials for the quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
Forty randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Dimensional changes were obtained from clinical measurements and three-dimensional imaging. The average amount of horizontal ridge resorption was 1.52 (SD 1.29) mm (allograft), 1.47 (SD 0.92) mm (xenograft), 2.31 (SD 1.19) mm (alloplast) and 3.1 (SD 1.07) mm for unassisted healing. Similarly, for all the evaluated parameters, the spontaneous healing of the socket led to higher bone loss rate than the use of a bone grafting material.
CONCLUSIONS
The utilization of a bone grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation reduces the resorption process occurring after tooth extraction. However, minimal differences in resorption rate were observed between allogeneic, xenogeneic and alloplastic grafting materials.
PubMed: 31620268
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10306 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of the available platelet-rich plasma (PRP) products and composition to regenerate alveolar bone after tooth... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of the available platelet-rich plasma (PRP) products and composition to regenerate alveolar bone after tooth extraction.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCO databases were searched up to 2 July 2021. Only randomized clinical trials using leukocyte-rich plasma (L-PRP) or pure-platelet rich plasma (P-PRP) for bone regeneration in alveolar ridge preservation were selected. The following outcomes were considered: (1) new bone formation (primary outcome) and (2) bone density (secondary outcome). A meta-analysis for PRP, P-PRP, and L-PRP using a fixed effect model was performed with Review Manager 5.4 software. Overall evidence was qualified using GRADE.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials from 2639 unique articles initially identified met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed a significant effect of the P-PRP on the outcome of new bone formation (SMD, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.03) for P-PRP treatment. No information was retrieved for L-PRP. A statistically significant difference was also observed in the P-PRP group for bone density outcome (SMD, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.68). The L-PRP treated sockets also showed higher bone density (SMD, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.45) in comparison to control sockets. The quality of evidence was moderate for both outcomes in the P-PRP group and low for the L-PRP group.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limitations of the included studies, our data suggest that P-PRP, in comparison to unassisted healing, can improve alveolar bone regenerative potential. However, more high-quality clinical studies are needed.
PubMed: 36290474
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9100506 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Feb 2022By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating ≥ 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO).
RESULTS
Twelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously.
CONCLUSIONS
Coverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Autologous soft tissue grafts and membranes covering graft materials in post-extraction sites were proved to allow lower hard tissue shrinkage compared to the absence of coverage material with sealing effect. Histomorphometric analyses showed that non-crosslinked membranes provide improved hard tissue regeneration when compared to crosslinked ones.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Care; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34825280
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04262-3