-
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 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2020The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal ridge augmentation with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block compared with autogenous bone block.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted including human studies published in English through March 13, 2019. Comparative and non-comparative studies evaluating horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias.
RESULTS
One comparative study with high quality and 12 non-comparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis from being performed. The comparative retrospective short-term study demonstrated no significant difference in implant treatment outcome between the two treatment modalities. Non-comparative long-term studies revealed high implant survival, gain in alveolar ridge width and bone regeneration with allogeneic bone block. However, non-comparative studies disclosed high incidence of complications including dehiscence, exposure of allogeneic bone block and partial or total loss of the grafts.
CONCLUSIONS
There seemed to be no difference in implant treatment outcome after horizontal ridge augmentation with allogeneic bone block compared with autogenous bone block. However, increased risk of complications was frequently reported with allogeneic bone block.
PubMed: 32377325
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2020.11101 -
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 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024Alveolar preservation techniques for esthetic or functional purposes, or both, are a frequently used alternative for the treatment of post-extraction sockets, the aim of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar preservation techniques for esthetic or functional purposes, or both, are a frequently used alternative for the treatment of post-extraction sockets, the aim of which is the regeneration of the lesion and the preservation of the alveolar bone crest.
METHODS
Studies published in PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to January 2024 were consulted. Inclusion criteria were established as intervention studies, according to the PICOs strategy: adult subjects undergoing dental extractions (participants), with alveoli treated with bone mineral grafts and collagen membranes (intervention), compared to spontaneous healing (comparison), and observing the response to treatment in clinical and radiological measures of the alveolar bone crest (outcomes).
RESULTS
We obtained 561 results and selected 12 studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute. Due to the high heterogeneity of the studies (I > 75%), a random-effects meta-analysis was used. Despite the trend, no statistical significance ( > 0.05) was found in the experimental groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of bone mineral grafts in combination with resorbable collagen barriers provides greater preservation of the alveolar ridge, although more clinical studies are needed.
PubMed: 38927801
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11060565 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023To assess whether in animals or patients with ≥ 1 tooth extracted, hyaluronic acid (HyA) application results in superior healing and/or improved complication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether in animals or patients with ≥ 1 tooth extracted, hyaluronic acid (HyA) application results in superior healing and/or improved complication management compared to any other treatment or no treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three databases were searched until April 2022. The most relevant eligibility criteria were (1) local application of HyA as adjunct to tooth extraction or as treatment of alveolar osteitis, and (2) reporting of clinical, radiographic, histological, or patient-reported data. New bone formation and/or quality were considered main outcome parameters in preclinical studies, while pain, swelling, and trismus were defined as main outcome parameters in clinical studies.
RESULTS
Five preclinical and 22 clinical studies (1062 patients at final evaluation) were included. In preclinical trials, HyA was applied into the extraction socket. Although a positive effect of HyA was seen in all individual studies on bone formation, this effect was not confirmed by meta-analysis. In clinical studies, HyA was applied into the extraction socket or used as spray or mouthwash. HyA application after non-surgical extraction of normally erupted teeth may have a positive effect on soft tissue healing. Based on meta-analyses, HyA application after surgical removal of lower third molars (LM3) resulted in significant reduction in pain perception 7 days postoperatively compared to either no additional wound manipulation or the application of a placebo/carrier. Early post-operative pain, trismus, and extent of swelling were unaffected.
CONCLUSIONS
HyA application may have a positive effect in pain reduction after LM3 removal, but not after extraction of normally erupted teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
HyA application may have a positive effect in pain reduction after surgical LM3 removal, but it does not seem to have any impact on other complications or after extraction of normally erupted teeth. Furthermore, it seems not to reduce post-extraction alveolar ridge modeling, even though preclinical studies show enhanced bone formation.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Tooth Socket; Hyaluronic Acid; Trismus; Dry Socket; Tooth Extraction; Molar, Third; Pain
PubMed: 37963982
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05227-4 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Aug 2023To investigate the histomorphometric changes occurring in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) based on the use of different plasma concentrates (PCs) in randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the histomorphometric changes occurring in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) based on the use of different plasma concentrates (PCs) in randomized clinical trials (RCT). There is controversy whether the placement of PCs in ARP is effective in the formation of new bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database to answer the PICO question: In patients undergoing tooth extraction followed by ARP, do PCs alone in the post-extraction socket in comparison with spontaneous healing improve new vital bone formation percentage in histomorphometric analysis after more than 10 weeks? The risk of bias was assessed and a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Of 3809 results, 8 studies were considered suitable for inclusion. A total of 255 teeth were extracted in 250 patients. Regarding the PCs used, ARP was performed with platelet- and leukocyte-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in 120 sockets, and with pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) in 31 sockets and 104 sockets were controlled. PCs improved new bone formation in ARP with respect to the spontaneous healing group (SMD = 1.77, 95%C.I. = 1.47-2.06, p-value < 000.1). There were no differences between the different PCs (L-PRF and P-PRP).
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis support the efficacy of the use of PCs in new bone formation in ARP. With respect to the different types of PCs studied, no differences were observed.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
When planning implant surgery after tooth extraction, treatment with PCs should be considered for ARP. Any PC increases new bone formation compared to spontaneous healing.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Alveolar Process; Osteogenesis; Tooth; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Tooth Extraction; Fibrin; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 37439800
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05126-8 -
Maxillofacial Plastic and... Jul 2022After tooth extraction, dimensional changes affect the alveolar socket, leading to loss in alveolar bone height and width. Histological modifications also occur, with... (Review)
Review
After tooth extraction, dimensional changes affect the alveolar socket, leading to loss in alveolar bone height and width. Histological modifications also occur, with initial formation of a blood clot that is replaced with granulation tissue and subsequently with a provisional connective tissue matrix. Spontaneous healing ends with socket filling with woven bone, which is gradually replaced with lamellar bone and bone marrow. Adequate alveolar ridge dimensions and bone quality are required to assure optimal stability and osseointegration following dental implant placement. When a tooth is extracted, alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures are an effective method to prevent collapse of the post-extraction socket. Heterologous bone is widely chosen by clinicians for ARP, and anorganic bone xenografts (ABXs) made bioinert by heat treatment represents the most used biomaterial in clinical applications. Collagen-preserving bone xenografts (CBXs) made of porcine or equine bone are fabricated by less invasive chemical or enzymatic treatments to remove xenogenic antigens, and these are also effective in preserving post-extraction sites. Clinical differences between anorganic bone substitutes and collagen-preserving materials are not well documented in the literature but understanding these differences could clarify how processing protocols influence biomaterial behavior in situ. This systematic review of the literature compares the dimensional changes and histological features of ABXs versus CBXs in ridge preservation procedures to promote awareness of different bone xenograft efficacies in stimulating the healing of post-extraction sockets.
PubMed: 35821286
DOI: 10.1186/s40902-022-00349-3 -
Imaging Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Post-Exodontic Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.Dentistry Journal Nov 2023Tooth extraction is the most common procedure in dental practice. However, in the long term, it may cause alveolar ridge atrophy. This systematic review aimed to... (Review)
Review
Tooth extraction is the most common procedure in dental practice. However, in the long term, it may cause alveolar ridge atrophy. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in post-exodontic alveolar ridge preservation in terms of its effectiveness in the regeneration of bone tissue as assessed by imaging and its efficacy compared to physiological bone healing. The study is presented in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The gray literature search was conducted in the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report. All the studies in this systematic review were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.2 (RevMan 6.2). Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17 randomized clinical trials published up to 2022 investigating the efficacy of PRF in post-exodontic bone regeneration. Based on the results of clinical studies, it can be stated that despite not being statistically significant, PRF promotes neoformation and prevents bone loss between three and four months post-extraction.
PubMed: 38132415
DOI: 10.3390/dj11120277 -
Frontiers in Bioscience (Landmark... Jun 2022The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a comparative overview of the two global pandemics: the first on June 11th 2009 due to influenza A H1N1 (H1N1-09); the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a comparative overview of the two global pandemics: the first on June 11th 2009 due to influenza A H1N1 (H1N1-09); the second and current pandemic caused by coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) on March 11th 2020, focusing on how autopsy can contribute to the definition of cellular pathology, to clinical pathology and, more generally, to public health.
METHODS
A systematic literature search selection was conducted on PubMed database on June 5, 2021, with this search strategy: (COVID-19) AND (H1N1 influenza) showing 101 results. The following inclusion criteria were selected: English language; published in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal; full-length articles were further elected. To further refine the research was to focus on the type of manuscript: review, systematic review, and meta-analysis. A critical appraisal of the collected studies was conducted, analyzing titles and abstracts, excluding the following topics: treatment, public health measures and perception of the general population or healthcare personnel about their quality of life. According to these procedures, 54 eligible studies were included in the present review.
RESULTS
Histopathological findings play a key role in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of diseases and, thus possible therapeutic approaches. The evidence on the thrombo-inflammatory mechanism underlying COVID-19 is growing to a much greater magnitude than the diffuse alveolar damage in common with H1N1-09; our study appears to be in line with these results. The prevailing scientific thinking to explain the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 patients is that it elicits an exuberant immune reaction characterized by dysregulated cytokine production, known as a "cytokine storm".
CONCLUSIONS
The histological and immunohistochemical pattern demonstrated similarities and differences between the infectious manifestations of the two pathogens, which justify empirical therapeutic approaches, in the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the previous pandemic should have taught us to promote a culture of clinical and forensic autopsies in order to provide timely evidence from integration among autopsy and clinical data for early adopting adequate therapies.
Topics: Autopsy; COVID-19; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Lung; Pandemics; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35748258
DOI: 10.31083/j.fbl2706182 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a proactive treatment option aiming at attenuating post-extraction hard and soft tissue dimensional changes. A high number of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a proactive treatment option aiming at attenuating post-extraction hard and soft tissue dimensional changes. A high number of different types of biomaterials have been utilized during ARP to seal the socket, but their effectiveness in terms of soft tissue outcomes has rarely been investigated and compared in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of different types of membranes and graft materials in terms of soft tissue outcomes (keratinized tissue width changes, vertical buccal height, and horizontal changes) after ARP, and to assign relative rankings based on their performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO). PUBMED (Medline), SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist were utilized to conduct the search up to 06 April 2021. English language restrictions were placed and no limitations were set on publication date. Randomized controlled trials that report ARP procedures using different sealing materials, assessing soft tissue as a primary or secondary outcome, with at least 6-week follow-up were included. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using mean, standard deviation, sample size, bias, and follow-up duration for all included studies. Network geometry, contribution plots, inconsistency plots, predictive and confidence interval plots, SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings, and multidimensional (MDS) ranking plots were constructed.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were included for NMA. Overall, the level of bias for included studies was moderate. Crosslinked collagen membranes (SUCRA rank 81.8%) performed best in vertical buccal height (VBH), autogenous soft tissue grafts (SUCRA rank 89.1%) in horizontal width change (HWch), and control (SUCRA rank 85.8%) in keratinized mucosa thickness (KMT).
CONCLUSIONS
NMA confirmed that the use of crosslinked collagen membranes and autogenous soft tissue grafts represented the best choices for sealing sockets during ARP in terms of minimizing post-extraction soft tissue dimensional shrinkage.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Grafting materials demonstrated statistically significantly better performances in terms of soft tissue thickness and vertical buccal height changes, when covered with crosslinked collagen membranes. Instead, soft tissue grafts performed better in horizontal width changes. Non-crosslinked membranes and other materials or combinations presented slightly inferior outcomes.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Collagen; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34669038
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04192-0