-
Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Dental Research Oct 2014Alveolar ridge preservation strategies are indicated to minimize the loss of ridge volume that typically follows tooth extraction. The aim of this systematic review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Alveolar ridge preservation strategies are indicated to minimize the loss of ridge volume that typically follows tooth extraction. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effect that socket filling with a bone grafting material has on the prevention of postextraction alveolar ridge volume loss as compared with tooth extraction alone in nonmolar teeth. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Literature screening and article selection were conducted by 3 independent reviewers, while data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcome measures were mean horizontal ridge changes (buccolingual) and vertical ridge changes (midbuccal, midlingual, mesial, and distal). The influence of several variables of interest (i.e., flap elevation, membrane usage, and type of bone substitute employed) on the outcomes of ridge preservation therapy was explored via subgroup analyses. We found that alveolar ridge preservation is effective in limiting physiologic ridge reduction as compared with tooth extraction alone. The clinical magnitude of the effect was 1.89 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 2.36; p < .001) in terms of buccolingual width, 2.07 mm (95% CI: 1.03, 3.12; p < .001) for midbuccal height, 1.18 mm (95% CI: 0.17, 2.19; p = .022) for midlingual height, 0.48 mm (95% CI: 0.18, 0.79; p = .002) for mesial height, and 0.24 mm (95% CI: -0.05, 0.53; p = .102) for distal height changes. Subgroup analyses revealed that flap elevation, the usage of a membrane, and the application of a xenograft or an allograft are associated with superior outcomes, particularly on midbuccal and midlingual height preservation.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Membranes, Artificial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Flaps; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 24966231
DOI: 10.1177/0022034514541127 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2019The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared to tooth extraction alone in function of relevant clinical, radiographic and patient-centred outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this review was conducted by two independent examiners. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these RCTs were collated into evidence tables. Endpoints of interest included clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Interventions reported in the selected studies were clustered into ARP treatment modalities. All these different ARP modalities were compared to the control therapy (i.e. spontaneous socket healing) in each individual study after a 3- to 6-month healing period. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted if at least two studies within the same ARP treatment modality reported on the same outcome of interest.
RESULTS
A combined database, grey literature and hand search identified 3,003 records, of which 1,789 were screened after removal of duplicates. Following the application of the eligibility criteria, 25 articles for a total of 22 RCTs were included in the final selection, from which nine different ARP treatment modalities were identified: (a) bovine bone particles (BBP) + socket sealing (SS), (b) construct made of 90% bovine bone granules and 10% porcine collagen (BBG/PC) + SS, (c) cortico-cancellous porcine bone particles (CPBP) + SS, (d) allograft particles (AG) + SS, (e) alloplastic material (AP) with or without SS, (f) autologous blood-derived products (ABDP), (g) cell therapy (CTh), (h) recombinant morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and (i) SS alone. Quantitative analyses for different ARP modalities, all of which involved socket grafting with a bone substitute, were feasible for a subset of clinical and radiographic outcomes. The results of a pooled quantitative analysis revealed that ARP via socket grafting (ARP-SG), as compared to tooth extraction alone, prevents horizontal (M = 1.99 mm; 95% CI 1.54-2.44; p < 0.00001), vertical mid-buccal (M = 1.72 mm; 95% CI 0.96-2.48; p < 0.00001) and vertical mid-lingual (M = 1.16 mm; 95% CI 0.81-1.52; p < 0.00001) bone resorption. Whether there is a superior ARP or SS approach could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence. However, the application of particulate xenogenic or allogenic materials covered with an absorbable collagen membrane or a rapidly absorbable collagen sponge was associated with the most favourable outcomes in terms of horizontal ridge preservation. A specific quantitative analysis showed that sites presenting a buccal bone thickness >1.0 mm exhibited more favourable ridge preservation outcomes (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 3.2 mm), as compared to sites with a thinner buccal wall (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 1.29 mm). The effect of other local and systemic factors could not be assessed as part of the quantitative analyses. PROMs were comparable between the experimental and the control group in two studies involving the use of ABDP. The effect of other ARP modalities on PROMs could not be investigated, as these outcomes were not reported in any other clinical trial included in this study.
CONCLUSION
Alveolar ridge preservation is an effective therapy to attenuate the dimensional reduction of the alveolar ridge that normally takes place after tooth extraction.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Animals; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Cattle; Humans; Swine; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 30623987
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13057 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2022This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Both electronic and manual searches were performed for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies consisting of at least 10 cases per group and a follow-up of at least 1-year in duration. The primary outcome was the implant success rate and secondary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES) and patient reported outcomes consisting of complications and satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were included (8 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies). This review contained 456 implants placed after ARP and 459 implants placed through IIP. The results from this meta-analysis showed that the success rates of implants placed through ARP protocol (98.68%) was significantly higher than that of implants placed through IIP protocol (95.21%) (RR = 1.03; 95% CI [1.01; 1.06]; P = .008; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
The results from this meta-analysis and systematic review showed that implants placed through ARP protocol may demonstrate higher success rates compared to implants placed through IIP.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36162892
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101734 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, which grafting material best attenuates horizontal and vertical ridge resorption, as compared to spontaneous healing?, and (b) which material(s) promotes bone formation in the extraction socket?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were screened in duplicate for RCTs up to March 2021. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Primary outcomes were ridge horizontal and vertical dimension changes and new bone formation into the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes and compare different grafting materials.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets. Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage. According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation.
CONCLUSIONS
Alveolar ridge preservation is effective in reducing both horizontal and vertical shrinkage, as compared to untreated sockets. NMA confirmed the consistency of XG for ridge dimension preservation, but several other materials and combinations like AG, Bio + AG, and AG + alloplasts, produced even better results than XG in clinical comparisons. Further evidence is needed to confirm the value of such alternatives to XG for alveolar ridge preservation. Bio + AG performed better than the other materials in preserving ridge dimension and platelet concentrates in new bone formation. However, alloplasts, xenografts, and AG + AP performed consistently good in majority of the clinical comparisons.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
XG and Bio + AG demonstrated significantly better performance in minimizing post-extraction horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes as compared with other grafting materials or with spontaneous healing, even if they presented the worst histological outcomes. Allografts and other materials or combinations (AG + AP) presented similar performances while spontaneous healing ranked last.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34826029
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04248-1 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2019The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of various techniques used for vertical ridge augmentation on clinical vertical bone gain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of various techniques used for vertical ridge augmentation on clinical vertical bone gain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: "In patients with vertical alveolar ridge deficiencies, how effective are different augmentation procedures for clinical alveolar ridge gain?" Randomized and controlled clinical trials and prospective and retrospective case series were included, and meta-analyses were performed to evaluate vertical bone gain based on the type of procedure and to compare bone gains in controlled studies.
RESULTS
Thirty-six publications were included. Results demonstrated a significant vertical bone gain for all treatment approaches (n = 33; weighted mean effect = 4.16 mm; 95% CI 3.72-4.61; p < 0.001). Clinical vertical bone gain and complications rate varied among the different procedures, with a weighted mean gain of 8.04 mm and complications rate of 47.3% for distraction osteogenesis, 4.18 mm and 12.1% for guided bone regeneration (GBR), and 3.46 mm and 23.9% for bone blocks. In comparative studies, GBR achieved a significant greater bone gain when compared to bone blocks (n = 3; weighted mean difference = 1.34 mm; 95% CI 0.76-1.91; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Vertical ridge augmentation is a feasible and effective therapy for the reconstruction of deficient alveolar ridges, although complications are common.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30667522
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13061 -
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 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 -
Journal of Periodontology May 2019The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.
METHODS
An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30395355
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2012Removal of teeth results in both horizontal and vertical changes of hard and soft tissue dimensions. The magnitude of these changes is important for decision-making and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Removal of teeth results in both horizontal and vertical changes of hard and soft tissue dimensions. The magnitude of these changes is important for decision-making and comprehensive treatment planning, with provisions for possible solutions to expected complications during prosthetic rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES
To review all English dental literature to assess the magnitude of dimensional changes of both the hard and soft tissues of the alveolar ridge up to 12 months following tooth extraction in humans.
METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE and CENTRAL search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies on hard and soft tissue dimensional changes after tooth extraction. Only studies reporting on undisturbed post-extraction dimensional changes relative to a fixed reference point over a clearly stated time period were included. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data collected were reported by descriptive methods. Weighted means and percentages of the dimensional changes over time were calculated where appropriate.
RESULTS
The search provided 3954 titles and 238 abstracts. Full text analysis was performed for 104 articles resulting in 20 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In human hard tissue, horizontal dimensional reduction (3.79 ± 0.23 mm) was more than vertical reduction (1.24 ± 0.11 mm on buccal, 0.84 ± 0.62 mm on mesial and 0.80 ± 0.71 mm on distal sites) at 6 months. Percentage vertical dimensional change was 11-22% at 6 months. Percentage horizontal dimensional change was 32% at 3 months, and 29-63% at 6-7 months. Soft tissue changes demonstrated 0.4-0.5 mm gain of thickness at 6 months on the buccal and lingual aspects. Horizontal dimensional changes of hard and soft tissue (loss of 0.1-6.1 mm) was more substantial than vertical change (loss 0.9 mm to gain 0.4 mm) during observation periods of up to 12 months, when study casts were utilized as a means of documenting the changes.
CONCLUSIONS
Human re-entry studies showed horizontal bone loss of 29-63% and vertical bone loss of 11-22% after 6 months following tooth extraction. These studies demonstrated rapid reductions in the first 3-6 months that was followed by gradual reductions in dimensions thereafter.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Vertical Dimension
PubMed: 22211303
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcome after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion with split-crest technique compared with lateral ridge augmentation with autogenous bone block graft.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until 8th of February, 2018 were included.
RESULTS
One comparative and four noncomparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both treatment modalities disclosed high survival rate of implants with few complications. High survival rate of prosthesis, implant stability values, limited peri-implant marginal bone loss and gain in maxillary alveolar ridge width were reported with the split-crest technique. Patient-reported outcome measure and length of patient treatment time was not assessed in any of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The split-crest technique seems to be useful for horizontal augmentation of maxillary alveolar deficiencies with high survival rate of prosthesis and implants. However, further long-term randomized controlled trials with larger patient sample as well as assessment of patient-reported outcome measures and patient treatment time are needed before well-defined conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.
PubMed: 32158526
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10402