-
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 -
Journal of Dental Research Apr 2020Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of facilitating tooth replacement therapy. This randomized controlled trial was primarily aimed at testing the efficacy of ARP as compared with unassisted socket healing. A secondary objective was to evaluate the effect that local phenotypic factors play in the volumetric reduction of the alveolar bone. A total of 53 subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomized into either the control group, which involved only tooth extraction (EXT = 27), or the experimental group, which received ARP using a combination of socket grafting with a particulate bone allograft and socket sealing with a nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) following tooth extraction (ARP = 26). A set of clinical, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk healing period. All linear bone assessments (horizontal, midbuccal, and midlingual reduction) revealed that ARP is superior to EXT. Likewise, volumetric bone resorption was significantly higher in the control group (mean ± SD: EXT = -15.83% ± 4.48%, ARP = -8.36% ± 3.81%, < 0.0001). Linear regression analyses revealed that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of alveolar bone resorption in both groups. Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups. Additional bone augmentation to facilitate implant placement in a prosthetically acceptable position was deemed necessary in 48.1% of the EXT sites and only 11.5% of the ARP sites ( < 0.004). Assessment of perceived postoperative discomfort at each follow-up visit revealed a progressive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups. Although some extent of alveolar ridge remodeling occurred in both groups, ARP therapy was superior to EXT as it was more efficacious in the maintenance of alveolar bone and reduced the estimated need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01794806).
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 32050833
DOI: 10.1177/0022034520905660 -
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 -
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 -
British Dental Journal Mar 2021
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 33772190
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-021-2851-0 -
Periodontology 2000 Oct 2023In the last 20 years, immediate implant placement has been proposed as a predictable protocol to replace failing teeth. The research conducted in preclinical and... (Review)
Review
In the last 20 years, immediate implant placement has been proposed as a predictable protocol to replace failing teeth. The research conducted in preclinical and clinical studies have focused on soft and hard tissue changes following tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. Different approaches for hard and soft tissue grafting together with provisional restorations have been proposed to compensate tissue alterations. This review analyzed some relevant clinical and preclinical literature focusing on the impact of bone grafting procedures on immediate implant placement in terms of hard and soft tissue changes, aesthetic results, and patient-related outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Bone Transplantation; Tooth Socket; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Tooth Extraction; Esthetics, Dental; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37658586
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12516 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Feb 2023The purpose of this study was to compare different materials' effects on alveolar ridge preservation of postextraction sockets in anterior maxilla. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare different materials' effects on alveolar ridge preservation of postextraction sockets in anterior maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
In this prospective, single center, randomized, controlled clinical trial, healthy patients who needed one single anterior maxillary tooth extraction (including bicuspids) were selected. After a minimally traumatic extraction without complications, 44 patients were randomly allocated into 4 groups: 1) natural socket healing (blood clot), 2) xenograft and gingival free graft, 3) dense polytetrafluoroethylene membrane, and 4) platelet rich fibrin plugs. Alveolar ridge height and width loss were evaluated in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and in dental casts at 3 moments: 1) preoperative (T1), 2) 7 days postoperative (T2), and 3) 120 days postoperative (T3). Height and width alveolar ridge loss detected in CBCT and in dental casts were compared among the groups (two-way analysis of variance [ANOVA]; P < .05).
RESULTS
Forty patients (24 women and 16 men) ranging from 25 to 70 years old (mean of 42 years old) participated in this study. Group 2 showed the least alveolar ridge height loss results in CBCT (9.8 ± 1.9% at T3) and dental cast analysis (1.0 ± 0.2 mm). Groups 2 (12.7 ± 4.7% at T3) and 3 (15.4 ± 2.7% at T3) showed the least alveolar ridge width loss measured in CBCT compared with groups 1 and 4, but the difference between groups 2 and 3 were not statistically significant (P = .968). Group 3 (0.9 ± 0.2 mm) and group 2 (1.0 ± 0.2 mm) showed the least width loss compared with groups 1 and 4 in dental cast analysis. Again, the difference between groups 3 and 2 was not statistically significant (P = 1.000).
CONCLUSION
In postextraction sockets of the anterior maxilla and bicuspid region, group 2 (xenogenous bone graft with free gingival graft) and group 3 (dense polytetrafluoroethylene) obtained the best results in alveolar preservation, with group 2 being more indicated when the vertical alveolar ridge preservation is mandatory.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Tooth Socket; Alveolar Bone Loss; Prospective Studies; Alveolar Process; Tooth Extraction; Polytetrafluoroethylene; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 36400157
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.10.008 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Aug 2023The aim of the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on dimensional... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on dimensional alterations after tooth extraction, based on clinical measurements.
BACKGROUND
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a common procedure in every day clinical practice, when dental implants are involved in treatment planning. In ARP procedures, a bone grafting material is combined with a socket sealing (SS) material in order to compensate the alveolar ridge dimensional alterations after tooth extraction. Xenograft and allograft are the most frequently used bone grafts in ARP, while free gingival graft (FGG), collagen membrane, and collagen sponge (CS) usually applied as SS materials. The evidence comparing xenograft and allograft directly in ARP procedure is scarce. In addition, FGG is usually combined with xenograft as SS material, while the evidence combing allograft with FGG is absent. Moreover, CS could probably be an alternative choice in ARP as SS material, since it has been used in previous studies but more clinical trials are required to evaluate its effectiveness.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-one patients were randomly assigned in four treatment groups: (A) freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) covered with collagen sponge (CS), (B) FDBA covered with free gingival graft (FGG), (C) demineralized bovine bone mineral xenograft (DBBM) covered with FGG, and (D) FGG alone. Clinical measurements were performed immediately after tooth extraction and 4 months later. The related outcomes pertained to both vertical and horizontal assessment of bone loss.
RESULTS
Overall, groups A, B, and C presented significantly less vertical and horizontal bone resorption compared to group D. No statistically significant difference was observed between allograft and xenograft, except for the vertical bone resorption at the buccal central site, where xenograft showed marginally statistically significantly reduced bone loss compared to allograft (group C vs group B: adjusted β coef: 1.07 mm; 95%CI: 0.01, 2.10; p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in hard tissue dimensions when CS and FGG were applied over FDBA.
CONCLUSIONS
No differences between FDBA and DBBM could practically be confirmed. In addition, CS and FGG were equally effective socket sealing materials when combined with FDBA, regarding bone resorption. More RCTs are needed to compare the histological differences between FDBA and DBBM and the effect of CS and FGG on soft tissue dimensional changes.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Xenograft and allograft were equally efficient in ARP 4 months after tooth extraction in horizontal level. Xenograft maintained the mid-buccal site of the socket marginally better than the allograft, in vertical level. FGG and CS were equally efficient as SS materials regarding the hard tissue dimensional alterations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinical trial registration Number: NCT04934813 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Topics: Humans; Animals; Cattle; Tooth Socket; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Bone Loss; Collagen; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 37227497
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05068-1 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2023The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Process; Tooth Socket; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 35913046
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12441 -
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