-
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 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 -
Journal of the Korean Association of... Dec 2020Extraction socket preservation (ESP) is widely performed after tooth extraction for future implant placement. For successful outcome of implants after extractions,...
Extraction socket preservation (ESP) is widely performed after tooth extraction for future implant placement. For successful outcome of implants after extractions, clinicians should be acquainted with the principles and indications of ESP. It is recommended that ESP be actively implemented in cases of esthetic areas, severe bone defects, and delayed implant placement. Dental implant placement is recommended at least 4 months after ESP.
PubMed: 33377470
DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.6.435 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Implant... Sep 2020Dental implants have become a standard treatment in the replacement of missing teeth. After tooth extraction and implant placement, resorption of buccal bundle bone can... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dental implants have become a standard treatment in the replacement of missing teeth. After tooth extraction and implant placement, resorption of buccal bundle bone can pose a significant complication with often very negative cosmetic impacts. Studies have shown that if the dental root remains in the alveolar process, bundle bone resorption is very minimal. However, to date, the deliberate retention of roots to preserve bone has not been routinely used in dental implantology.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study aims to collect and evaluate the present knowledge with regard to the socket-shield technique as described by Hurzeler et al. (J Clin Periodontol 37(9):855-62, 2010). A PubMed database search ( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed ) was conducted to identify relevant publication.
RESULTS
The initial database search returned 229 results. After screening the abstracts, 13 articles were downloaded and further scrutinised. Twelve studies were found to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
CONCLUSION
Whilst the socket-shield technique potentially offers promising outcomes, reducing the need for invasive bone grafts around implants in the aesthetic zone, clinical data to support this is very limited. The limited data available is compromised by a lack of well-designed prospective randomised controlled studies. The existing case reports are of very limited scientific value. Retrospective studies exist in limited numbers but are of inconsistent design. At this stage, it is unclear whether the socket-shield technique will provide a stable long-time outcome.
PubMed: 32893327
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00246-2