-
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 Cranio-maxillo-facial... Nov 2019A comprehensive literature search on implant placement protocols after tooth extraction (immediate, early, delayed, or later) was performed up to 2018. The screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Which is the best choice after tooth extraction, immediate implant placement or delayed placement with alveolar ridge preservation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
A comprehensive literature search on implant placement protocols after tooth extraction (immediate, early, delayed, or later) was performed up to 2018. The screening process selected only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and grey literature. A series of pairwise meta-analyses was carried out to evaluate implant performance in each protocol. The primary outcomes were implant survival and esthetic outcome, measured by pink esthetic score (PES), and the secondary outcomes were peri-implant bone resorption and implant complications. The outcomes were at least 1 year after implant surgery. A total of 5056 studies were found, of which 16 were included for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed increased risk of implant failure by 3% in the immediate implant protocol. PES analysis showed no statistical significant difference between immediate or delayed protocols (p = 0.16). However, the subgroup analysis showed that the anterior region presented better results with immediate implants, while the molar region presented better results with delayed implants. The quantitative analysis showed no statistical difference in peri-implant bone resorption between the immediate and delayed implant protocols (p = 0.42). Due to the lack of studies with a low risk of bias, further RCTs are needed for definitive conclusions.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31522823
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.08.004 -
Periodontology 2000 Oct 2023Oral rehabilitation through implant supported dental restorations often requires a ridge augmentation procedure (RAP) prior to implant fixture placement since tooth... (Review)
Review
Oral rehabilitation through implant supported dental restorations often requires a ridge augmentation procedure (RAP) prior to implant fixture placement since tooth extraction/loss results in alveolar ridge deficiencies. Although RAP-related surgical techniques and biomaterials have been in practice for several decades, outcomes are not always predictable. Post-surgical complications experienced during the early or late wound healing phases may jeopardize the targeted ideal ridge dimensions, required for implant fixture placement, and may have other consequences, such as negatively impacting the patient's quality of life. This review describes reported post-surgical complications following RAP under the following subtitles: complications by tissue type, complications in function and aesthetics, complications by healing time, complications by biomaterial type, and complications by surgical protocol modalities. Specifically, RAP performed by using particulate bone graft substitutes and related complications are explored. Modalities developed to prevent/manage these complications are also discussed.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Quality of Life; Bone Transplantation; Alveolar Process; Bone Substitutes; Biocompatible Materials; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Dental Implants
PubMed: 37489632
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12509 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Nov 2023
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Process; Oral Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37833029
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2023.06.020 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Jun 2024When considering placing dental implants in atrophic edentulous sites, there may be inadequate site width and little or no vertical bone loss. Any of several surgical...
When considering placing dental implants in atrophic edentulous sites, there may be inadequate site width and little or no vertical bone loss. Any of several surgical procedures can augment these sites. Extracortical augmentation is done by applying graft material against the cortical bone. This technique expects progenitor cells to migrate outside the bony ridge's confines and form new bone. Another method entails ridge splitting and expansion to create space for osteogenesis and, when possible, implant placement. This may be a better method for horizontal ridge augmentation. The ridge is split, separating the facial and lingual cortices for a complete bone fracture. The patient's osseous cells can then migrate into the created space from the exposed medullary bone to form bone. The technique can be preferably performed flapless so the intact periosteum maintains a blood supply to ensure appropriate healing.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Alveolar Process; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 38624042
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-23-00186 -
Clinical Radiology Jul 2020The anterior alveolar ridge of the maxilla is a frequent site for pathology, most of it involving underlying bone and readily observable radiologically. Although much of... (Review)
Review
The anterior alveolar ridge of the maxilla is a frequent site for pathology, most of it involving underlying bone and readily observable radiologically. Although much of this disease presents as well-defined unilocular radiolucencies arising adjacent to the apices of non-vital anterior teeth, thus being periapical radiolucencies of inflammatory origin (PRIO), a minority reflects more serious disease such as neoplasia. The most serious of the latter are malignancies, most frequently squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). Although the majority of SCCs arise from the oral or nasal mucosa and secondarily invade the underlying bone, a proportion arise from epithelial remnants of odontogenesis within the alveolus. These need to be readily distinguished from other more common benign lesions, and also non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). The latter has been reported arising with the alveolus in addition to their more usual nodal and extranodal sites. The rarer malignancies that could arise within the anterior maxilla are addressed in the text with particular reference to the 2017 edition of the World Health Organisation Classification of Head and Neck Tumours.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Carcinoma; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Humans; Lymphoma; Maxilla; Maxillary Neoplasms; Sarcoma
PubMed: 31677882
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.09.133 -
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2021It is unclear if an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Immediate single-tooth implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation in bony defect sites in the esthetic region: A 5-year randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
It is unclear if an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was therefore comparison of peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings, and patient-reported satisfaction of immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm in the esthetic zone, with delayed implant placement after ridge preservation.
METHODS
Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥ 5 mm after extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed group, n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and placement of a provisional restoration occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. The follow-up was 5 years. Marginal bone level (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded.
RESULTS
Mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.35 mm and -0.54 ± 0.41 mm in respectively the Immediate group and the Delayed group after 5 years (P = 0.202). This difference, and in other variables, was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm, were comparable to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33724473
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.20-0845 -
Minerva Dental and Oral Science Aug 2023A recent systematic review failed to identify one approach for alveolar ridge preservation with superior outcomes. The present case series aimed to evaluate the...
BACKGROUND
A recent systematic review failed to identify one approach for alveolar ridge preservation with superior outcomes. The present case series aimed to evaluate the dimensional changes of sites undergoing Biologically-oriented Alveolar Ridge Preservation (BARP).
METHODS
The sockets were filled with a collagen sponge up to 4-5 mm from the most coronal extensions of the crest. Xenograft particles were placed to fill the coronal part. In cases with a compromised buccal/lingual bone, an additional collagen sponge was interposed between the residual cortical bone plate and the mucoperiosteal flap. A collagen sponge was placed to cover the graft.
RESULTS
The study population consisted in 10 extraction sites. Mean change in bone width and vertical ridge position as observed from BARP to re-entry for implant placement were 1.3 mm (14.4%) and 0.6 mm, respectively. The mean distance between buccal and lingual flap healing by secondary intention shifted from 4.9 mm immediately after BARP to 1.8 mm at 2 weeks. No marked differences in the dimensional changes of alveolar ridge were observed between sites with intact or deficient buccal bone plate. All implants were successfully loaded at 2-3 months after placement. In one case, bone augmentation was required.
CONCLUSIONS
The stratification of materials proposed in BARP-technique and the additional use of a resorbable device to stabilize graft particles at the buccal aspect provided the conditions for maintaining the ridge dimensions following tooth extraction comparable to the other technique of ARP, restricting the use of graft material to the most coronal portion of the socket.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Collagen; Wound Healing
PubMed: 37066894
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.23.04776-9 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2022Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures can limit bone changes following tooth extraction. Flapped and flapless surgical approaches have been used for ARP; however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures can limit bone changes following tooth extraction. Flapped and flapless surgical approaches have been used for ARP; however, there is a lack of strong scientific evidence regarding their specific influences on the clinical outcomes of ARP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of flapped and flapless surgical approaches on the dimensional changes of hard and soft tissues and patient-reported outcomes following ARP. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared flapped ARP by means of a coronally advanced flap to flapless ARP where barrier membranes were left exposed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Data were analysed using a statistical software program. A total of 754 studies were identified, of which five studies with 149 extraction sockets in 128 participants were included. Overall, meta-analysis did not show any significant differences in the changes in ridge width or height between flapped and flapless ARP. The use of flapless ARP was associated with significantly less postoperative pain, thicker labial soft tissues, and marginally more favourable changes in width of the keratinized tissues compared to the flapped approach. The short-term hard tissue changes following ARP with a flapped or flapless approach are comparable. Postoperative pain and labial soft tissue changes are more favourable following ARP using a flapless approach. Further evidence from long-term RCTs is still required to substantiate the current findings.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Humans; Surgical Flaps; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34127352
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.05.023 -
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