-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Jul 2016Coronectomy is an alternative to complete removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. Most authors have recommended coronectomy to prevent damage to the inferior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coronectomy is an alternative to complete removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. Most authors have recommended coronectomy to prevent damage to the inferior alveolar nerve during surgical extraction of lower third molars. The present study offers a systematic review and metaanalysis of the coronectomy technique.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on a PubMed and Cochrane databases search for articles published from 2014 and involving coronectomy of mandibular third molars located near the inferior alveolar nerve canal, with a minimum of 10 cases and a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 12 articles were included in the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Coronectomy results in significantly lesser loss of sensitivity of the inferior alveolar nerve and prevents the occurrence of dry socket. No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of pain and infection between coronectomy and complete surgical extraction. After coronectomy, the remaining tooth fragment migrates an average of 2 mm within two years.
CONCLUSIONS
Coronectomy is indicated when the mandibular third molar is in contact with the inferior alveolar nerve and complete removal of the tooth may cause nerve damage.
Topics: Humans; Mandible; Mandibular Nerve; Molar, Third; Tooth Crown; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Trigeminal Nerve Injuries
PubMed: 27031064
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21074 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Implant... Oct 2020Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol.
RESULTS
Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15-0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I = 15.2%.
CONCLUSION
In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.
PubMed: 32770283
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00235-5 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Jun 2022To assess the effect of grafting the gap (SG) between the implant surface and alveolar socket on hard and soft tissue changes following single immediate implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of grafting the gap (SG) between the implant surface and alveolar socket on hard and soft tissue changes following single immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to August 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with and without SG were included for a qualitative analysis. Meta-analyses were performed when possible.
RESULTS
Out of 3627 records, 15 RCTs were selected and reported on 577 patients who received 604 single immediate implants (IIP + SG: 298 implants in 292 patients; IIP: 306 implants in 285 patients) with a mean follow-up ranging from 4 to 36 months. Two RCTs showed low risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed 0.59 mm (95% CI [0.41; 0.78], p < 0.001) or 54% less horizontal buccal bone resorption following IIP + SG when compared to IIP alone. In addition, 0.58 mm (95% CI [0.28; 0.88], p < 0.001) less apical migration of the midfacial soft tissue level was found when immediate implants were installed with SG. A trend towards less distal papillary recession was found (MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI [-0.08; 1.28], p = 0.080) when SG was performed, while mesial papillae appeared not significantly affected by SG. Vertical buccal bone changes were also not significantly affected by SG. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes, pink esthetic score, marginal bone level changes, probing depth and bleeding on probing. Based on GRADE guidelines, a moderate recommendation for SG following IIP can be made.
CONCLUSION
SG may contribute to horizontal bone preservation and soft tissue stability at the midfacial aspect of immediate implants. Therefore, SG should be considered as an adjunct to IIP in clinical practice.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 35313067
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13079 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2014The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to quantitatively estimate the esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites, and (2) to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to quantitatively estimate the esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites, and (2) to evaluate the influence of simultaneous bone augmentation procedures on these outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and manual searches of the dental literature were performed to collect information on esthetic outcomes based on objective criteria with implants placed after extraction of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. All levels of evidence were accepted (case series studies required a minimum of 5 cases).
RESULTS
From 1,686 titles, 114 full-text articles were evaluated and 50 records included for data extraction. The included studies reported on single-tooth implants adjacent to natural teeth, with no studies on multiple missing teeth identified (6 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 33 case series studies). Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found. A meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The available evidence suggests that esthetic outcomes, determined by esthetic indices (predominantly the pink esthetic score) and positional changes of the peri-implant mucosa, may be achieved for single-tooth implants placed after tooth extraction. Immediate (type 1) implant placement, however, is associated with a greater variability in outcomes and a higher frequency of recession of > 1 mm of the midfacial mucosa (eight studies; range 9% to 41% and median 26% of sites, 1 to 3 years after placement) compared to early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement (2 studies; no sites with recession > 1 mm). In two retrospective studies of immediate (type 1) implant placement with bone graft, the facial bone wall was not detectable on cone beam CT in 36% and 57% of sites. These sites had more recession of the midfacial mucosa compared to sites with detectable facial bone. Two studies of early implant placement (types 2 and 3) combined with simultaneous bone augmentation with GBR (contour augmentation) demonstrated a high frequency (above 90%) of facial bone wall visible on CBCT. Recent studies of immediate (type 1) placement imposed specific selection criteria, including thick tissue biotype and an intact facial socket wall, to reduce esthetic risk. There were no specific selection criteria for early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS
Acceptable esthetic outcomes may be achieved with implants placed after extraction of teeth in the maxillary anterior and premolar areas of the dentition. Recession of the midfacial mucosa is a risk with immediate (type 1) placement. Further research is needed to investigate the most suitable biomaterials to reconstruct the facial bone and the relationship between long-term mucosal stability and presence/absence of the facial bone, the thickness of the facial bone, and the position of the facial bone crest.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bicuspid; Bone Transplantation; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Gingival Recession; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Incisor; Maxilla; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Extraction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24660198
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2022Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.
DESIGN
A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.
RESULTS
Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.
CONCLUSIONS
Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Smoking; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34625985
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13268