-
Clinical Oral Implants Research May 2024Pigs are emerging as a preferred experimental in vivo model for bone regeneration. The study objective was to answer the focused PEO question: in the pig model (P),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Pigs are emerging as a preferred experimental in vivo model for bone regeneration. The study objective was to answer the focused PEO question: in the pig model (P), what is the capacity of experimental alveolar bone defects (E) for spontaneous regeneration in terms of new bone formation (O)?
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases were searched for studies reporting experimental bone defects or extraction socket healing in the maxillae or mandibles of pigs. The main inclusion criteria were the presence of a control group of untreated defects/sockets and the assessment of regeneration via 3D tomography [radiographic defect fill (RDF)] or 2D histomorphometry [new bone formation (NBF)]. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes RDF and NBF.
RESULTS
Overall, 45 studies were included reporting on alveolar bone defects or extraction sockets, most frequently in the mandibles of minipigs. Based on morphology, defects were broadly classified as 'box-defects' (BD) or 'cylinder-defects' (CD) with a wide range of healing times (10 days to 52 weeks). Meta-analyses revealed pooled estimates (with 95% confidence intervals) of 50% RDF (36.87%-63.15%) and 43.74% NBF (30.47%-57%) in BD, and 44% RDF (16.48%-71.61%) and 39.67% NBF (31.53%-47.81%) in CD, which were similar to estimates of socket-healing [48.74% RDF (40.35%-57.13%) and 38.73% NBF (28.57%-48.89%)]. Heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was high (I > 90%).
CONCLUSION
A substantial body of literature revealed a high capacity for spontaneous regeneration in experimental alveolar bone defects of (mini)pigs, which should be considered in future studies of bone regeneration in this animal model.
Topics: Animals; Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Regeneration; Disease Models, Animal; Swine; Tooth Socket; Wound Healing
PubMed: 38450852
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14253 -
British Dental Journal Sep 2022Since its introduction in 1998, alveolar ridge preservation has become a popular technique, currently accounting for approximately 29% of all procedures involving bone...
Since its introduction in 1998, alveolar ridge preservation has become a popular technique, currently accounting for approximately 29% of all procedures involving bone substitute materials. The global cost of bone substitute materials for alveolar ridge preservation is estimated at $190 million annually and is expected to rise by approximately 11.4% per year.Numerous randomised controlled trials have compared alveolar ridge preservation to extraction alone. A recent Cochrane review reported that, in terms of socket dimensional change, the mean difference between alveolar ridge preservation and extraction alone is 1.18 mm horizontally and 1.35 mm vertically. The clinical impact of this is uncertain, for there is no significant difference in the need for graft procedures at implant placement between ridge preservation and extraction alone. There are no randomised controlled trials comparing aesthetic or functional outcomes.A systematic review of the histological outcomes of ridge preservation demonstrates that, compared to extraction alone, many bone substitute materials can significantly delay the bone healing process. No bone substitute material achieves statistically more new bone formation than extraction alone and many commonly used materials achieve significantly less bone formation. Grafted sites can demonstrate high levels of residual graft and granulation tissue.In the absence of good-quality clinical evidence to support alveolar ridge preservation, the technique must be questioned as the treatment of choice at extraction sites. This paper assesses recent systematic reviews and presents two case reports of late graft failure.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Substitutes; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 36151171
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-022-4967-2 -
Brazilian Oral Research 2024The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket...
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal species, different age ranges, diverse teeth extracted, and exposure or not to ovariectomy contributed to the lack of parity of the selected studies. Our results indicated that alendronate monotherapy negatively affects the early phase of wound healing after tooth extraction in preclinical studies, suggesting that the bone resorption process after tooth extraction in animals treated with alendronate might impair the bone healing process of the extraction socket. In conclusion, alendronate administration restrains bone resorption, thereby delaying alveolar socket healing . Future studies should be conducted to validate these findings and to better understand the effects of alendronate therapy on oral tissues.
Topics: Alendronate; Tooth Extraction; Animals; Wound Healing; Tooth Socket; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 38747825
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0038