-
International Journal of Implant... Oct 2020Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol.
RESULTS
Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15-0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I = 15.2%.
CONCLUSION
In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.
PubMed: 32770283
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00235-5 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Sep 2015Dry socket is one of the most common complications occurring after the extraction of a permanent tooth, but in spite of its high incidence there is not an established... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dry socket is one of the most common complications occurring after the extraction of a permanent tooth, but in spite of its high incidence there is not an established treatment for this condition.
OBJECTIVES
Analyze the efficacy of different methods used in the management of dry socket regarding results of pain's relief and alveolar mucosa healing compared to conventional surgical treatment of curettage and saline irrigation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A Cochrane and PubMed-MEDLINE database search was conducted with the search terms "dry socket", "post-extraction complications", "alvogyl", "alveolar osteitis" and "fibrynolitic alveolitis", individually and next, using the Boolean operator "AND". The inclusion criteria were: clinical studies including at least 10 patients, articles published from 2004 to 2014 written in English. The exclusion criteria were case reports and nonhuman studies.
RESULTS
11 publications were selected from a total of 627. Three of the 11 were excluded after reading the full text. The final review included 8 articles: 3 prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies and 3 clinical trials. They were stratified according to their level of scientific evidence using the SORT criteria (Strenght of Recommendation Taxonomy).
CONCLUSIONS
All treatments included in the review have the aim to relief patient's pain and promote alveolar mucosa healing in dry socket. Given the heterogeneity of interventions and the type of measurement scale, the results are difficult to compare. Curettage and irrigation should be carried out in dry socket, as well as another therapy such as LLLT, zinc oxide eugenol or plasma rich in growth factors, which are the ones that show better results in pain remission and alveolar mucosa healing. Assessment alveolar bone esposure must be a factor to consider in future research. Taking into account the scientific quality of the articles evaluated, a level B recommendation is given for therapeutic interventions proposed for the treatment of dry socket.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Pain Management; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26116842
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20589 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2021Alveolar Osteitis (AO) is one of the most common complications of tooth extraction. Several therapeutic interventions have been described for the treatment of AO,...
BACKGROUND
Alveolar Osteitis (AO) is one of the most common complications of tooth extraction. Several therapeutic interventions have been described for the treatment of AO, however, there are no treatment standardized protocols. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the efficacy in pain control of the different treatments for AO. The feasibility of the application of these interventions is also discussed.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A structured electronic and hand search strategy was applied to PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar between January 2010 and July 2020 to identify studies according to PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were original English and Spanish clinical trials that analyzed pain-control parameters according to visual analog scale (VAS, 0-10 scale), or pain relief patients' percentages. Those treatments that reach VAS ≤ 4 on day 2 or before; or ≥ 85% of patients with absence of pain symptoms at day 7 or before were considered acceptable for their recommendation.
RESULTS
The final review included 17 clinical trials. Among them, there were analyzed a total of 39 different AO treatments. 53,8% of the treatments fulfill the proposed parameters for pain control.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment alternatives are multiple, heterogeneous, and difficult to compare. The management of AO is summarized in basic (intra-alveolar irrigation) and specific procedures (Alveogyl®, Neocones®, SaliCept Patch®, Low-Level Laser, Platelet-Rich Fibrin) that reach pain control success. They could be selected according to their availability and advantages or disadvantages.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Pain Management; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34704976
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24256 -
International Journal of Implant... Dec 2021To address the focused question: in patients with freshly extracted teeth, what is the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in the prevention of pain and the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To address the focused question: in patients with freshly extracted teeth, what is the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in the prevention of pain and the regeneration of soft tissue and bone compared to the respective control without PRF treatment?
METHODS
After an electronic data search in PubMed database, the Web of Knowledge of Thomson Reuters and hand search in the relevant journals, a total of 20 randomized and/or controlled studies were included.
RESULTS
66.6% of the studies showed that PRF significantly reduced the postoperative pain, especially in the first 1-3 days after tooth extraction. Soft tissue healing was significantly improved in the group of PRF compared to the spontaneous wound healing after 1 week (75% of the evaluated studies). Dimensional bone loss was significantly lower in the PRF group compared to the spontaneous wound healing after 8-15 weeks but not after 6 months. Socket fill was in 85% of the studies significantly higher in the PRF group compared to the spontaneous wound healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyzed studies, PRF is most effective in the early healing period of 2-3 months after tooth extraction. A longer healing period may not provide any benefits. The currently available data do not allow any statement regarding the long-term implant success in sockets treated with PRF or its combination with biomaterials. Due to the heterogeneity of the evaluated data no meta-analysis was performed.
Topics: Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34923613
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00393-0 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019The aim of present study was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of present study was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for socket preservation/augmentation procedures and with reference to it suggest novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search protocol used the electronic MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 1 2009 and May 1 2019. The search included only human studies published in English. Outcomes were the indications and reasons for socket preservation/augmentation and classification of extraction sockets.
RESULTS
Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for the study. Although there are various types of extraction socket classifications none of them could completely evaluate all morphological parameters of alveolar ridge. Furthermore, present study revealed that indications for extraction socket preservation/augmentation have wider spectrum than socket morphology and are related to surrounding tissue anatomy or dental implantation operation indications and timing. Based on currently proposed extraction socket classifications and rationales, a novel decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area was suggested.
CONCLUSIONS
The need of extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction should be determined by the aesthetic, functional and risk-related viewpoint. A novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic zones can be useful tool in socket preservation/augmentation procedures.
PubMed: 31620265
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10303 -
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 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search protocol was developed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of implant survival rates (primary outcome), marginal-bone-level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters (i.e., bleeding on probing, probing depth), occurrence of peri-implant diseases, and aesthetic outcomes (secondary outcomes). Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up and a minimum of 10 patients having at least one dental implant inserted into the grafted socket were conducted. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for relevant articles published until 1st April 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model on the selected qualifying articles.
RESULTS
The present analysis included 7 RCTs. The survival rate of the implants inserted into the grafted sockets ranged from 95 to 100% after 1 to 4 years of follow-up. MBL loss was found to be significantly greater for the implants placed in the non-grafted healed sites than for those placed in the previously grafted sockets (weighted mean difference = -1.961 mm, P < 0.0001). In terms of MBL changes, no difference was detected between immediately inserted implants versus implants placed in previously grafted sockets. None of the included studies reported on the clinical parameters or occurrence of peri-implant diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Implants inserted into the previously grafted sockets showed high survival rates and lower marginal-bone-level loss than the implants inserted into the non-grafted sites.
PubMed: 31620270
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10308 -
Journal of Medicine and Life Mar 2022The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical need and impact of socket preservation to protect the bone for future dental implant placement. Moreover, we aimed to... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical need and impact of socket preservation to protect the bone for future dental implant placement. Moreover, we aimed to list down various methods of socket preservation by going through randomized clinical trials. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for all relevant publications, where researchers compared various methods and tools for socket preservation. All eight randomized controlled trials mentioned several methods that are helpful in preserving bone levels both horizontally and vertically. The studies included in this systematic review demonstrate that each material has certain efficacy in preserving the socket after tooth extraction for future implant placement. Socket preservation methods and materials are effective in preparing patients for future prostheses.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 35450006
DOI: 10.25122/jml-2021-0308