-
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 -
International Journal of Oral... Mar 2022To systematically review and analyse the efficacy of the socket shield technique in conjunction with immediate implant placement in the aesthetic zone in randomised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To systematically review and analyse the efficacy of the socket shield technique in conjunction with immediate implant placement in the aesthetic zone in randomised controlled trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2020. All randomised controlled trials reporting on immediate implantation with the socket shield technique in the aesthetic zone, with at least 15 patients and a 6-month follow-up, were included and analysed. A meta-analysis was then performed using both fixed and random effects models to evaluate the differences in buccal plate height, buccal plate width and pink aesthetic score between immediate implant placement with the socket shield technique and the conventional immediate implant placement technique.
RESULTS
Four randomised controlled trials were included and underwent quantitative analysis in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. When compared with the conventional immediate implantation group, the buccal plate height and buccal plate width for the socket shield technique group were statistically significant, with an overall increase of 0.57 mm (95% confidence interval -0.73 to -0.40) and 0.21 mm (95% confidence interval -0.26 to -0.16), respectively, at 6 months. Moreover, the pink aesthetic score for the socket shield technique group improved significantly by 1.59 points (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 3.15) at 6 months, and also demonstrated a statistically significant increase of 1.39 points (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 2.46) compared to the control group at the medium-term follow-up (12 to 36 months).
CONCLUSIONS
The present findings suggest that the socket shield technique has the potential to maintain buccal tissue contours and peri-implant tissue stability, improving functional and aesthetic outcomes in the aesthetic zone compared with the conventional immediate implant placement technique.
Topics: Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35266668
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Feb 2022This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of different graft materials used in alveolar ridge preservation on dimensional hard tissue changes of the... (Review)
Review
Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of dimensional hard tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation techniques of different bone substitutes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of different graft materials used in alveolar ridge preservation on dimensional hard tissue changes of the alveolar ridge, assessed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
METHODS
A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a manual search were conducted from November 2019 until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were included if they assessed at least 1 variable related to vertical or horizontal hard tissue changes measured using CBCT scans. After a qualitative analysis of the included studies, subgroups were formed according to the graft material used, and a quantitative analysis was performed for 5 outcome variables: changes in vertical alveolar bone height at 2 points (midbuccal and midpalatal/midlingual) and changes in horizontal (buccolingual) alveolar bone width at 3 different levels from the initial crest height (1, 3, and 5 mm).
RESULTS
The search resulted in 1,582 studies, and after an independent 3-stage screening, 16 studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significantly (<0.05) lower reduction of alveolar ridge dimensions for the xenogenic subgroup than in the allogenic subgroup, both vertically at the midbuccal aspect (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-0.20; standard error [SE]=0.26 vs. WMD=-0.90; SE=0.22) as well as horizontally at 1 mm (WMD=-1.32; SE=0.07 vs. WMD=-2.99; SE=0.96) and 3 mm (WMD=-0.78; SE=0.11 vs. WMD=-1.63; SE=0.40) from the initial crest height. No statistical analysis could be performed for the autogenic subgroup because it was not reported in sufficient numbers.
CONCLUSIONS
Less vertical and horizontal bone reduction was observed when xenogenic graft materials were used than when allogenic graft materials were used; however, the loss of alveolar ridge dimensions could not be completely prevented by any graft material.
PubMed: 35187870
DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2007100355 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jul 2022The objective of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in recovery following surgical removal of mandibular third molars with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in recovery following surgical removal of mandibular third molars with the application of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the extraction socket compared with alternative biomaterials or natural wound healing. A search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted. Human randomized controlled trials published in English up until December 31, 2020 were included. Outcome measures were pain, facial swelling, trismus, soft tissue healing, alveolar osteitis, and quality of life; these were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence intervals (CI). Four studies with a low or moderate risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A-PRF resulted in significantly lower pain scores when compared with leucocyte platelet-rich fibrin or natural wound healing after 2 days (-16.8, 95% CI -18.9 to -14.7), 3 days (-12.1, 95% CI -13.4 to -10.7), and 7 days (-1.9, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.9). A-PRF seems to have a negligible effect on facial swelling and trismus and some beneficial effect on soft tissue healing. Alveolar osteitis and quality of life were not assessed. The included studies were characterized by considerable heterogeneity and confounding variables. Thus, the level of evidence appears to be inadequate for clinical recommendations according to the focused question.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Quality of Life; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Trismus
PubMed: 35033409
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.11.014 -
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering Feb 2022Dental implantation is an effective method for the treatment of loose teeth, but the threaded dental implants used in the clinic cannot match with the tooth extraction...
Dental implantation is an effective method for the treatment of loose teeth, but the threaded dental implants used in the clinic cannot match with the tooth extraction socket. A root analogue implant (RAI) has the congruence shape, which reduces the damage to bone and soft tissue. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have the advantages of high precision, flexibility, and easy operation, becoming the main manufacturing method of RAI in basic research. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize AM technologies used for RAI manufacturing as well as the factors affecting successful implantation. First, it introduces the AM technologies according to different operating principles and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Then the influences of materials, structure design, surface characteristics, implant site, and positioning are discussed, providing reference for designers and dentists. Finally, it addresses the gap between basic research and clinical application for additive manufactured RAIs and discusses the current challenges and future research directions for this field.
Topics: Dental Implants; Tooth Root
PubMed: 34990114
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c01079 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Apr 2023Although the efficacy of ridge preservation is well documented, there is a lack of robust evidence regarding the influence of different surgical techniques. Flapless... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although the efficacy of ridge preservation is well documented, there is a lack of robust evidence regarding the influence of different surgical techniques. Flapless approaches are thought to be better at preserving soft tissue architecture and have been suggested for mild to moderate defects. This review investigates the efficacy of different flapless techniques for ridge preservation in mild to moderate defects with <50% buccal bone loss. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to obtain relevant articles published in English from 1974 to December 2019. The primary outcome was horizontal and vertical hard tissue dimensional changes. Soft tissue changes were evaluated as a secondary outcome. The Bio-Col technique, subperiosteal tunnel technique, and hard tissue with autogenous soft tissue graft/collagen matrix technique were identified. Eight studies were included, and quantitative analyses were performed for 4 studies for the primary outcome variables. The meta-analysis revealed significant reductions for horizontal changes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 2.56 mm, 95% CI [2.18, 2.95]), vertical mid-buccal (WMD = 1.47 mm, 95% CI [1.04, 1.90]), and vertical mid-lingual (WMD = 1.28 mm, 95% CI [0.68, 1.87]) in favor of flapless ridge preservation techniques. Subgroup analysis based on technique suggests minimal hard tissue differences. The efficacy of flapless ridge preservation techniques on soft tissue changes was inconclusive. In conclusion, flapless ridge preservation techniques are effective for mild to moderate defects. The technique or material used to close the extraction socket does not seem to significantly affect hard tissue changes, while the effect on soft tissue changes warrants further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Alveolar Process; Collagen; Alveolar Bone Loss
PubMed: 34965299
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00108 -
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 -
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 Investigations Feb 2022By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating ≥ 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO).
RESULTS
Twelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously.
CONCLUSIONS
Coverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Autologous soft tissue grafts and membranes covering graft materials in post-extraction sites were proved to allow lower hard tissue shrinkage compared to the absence of coverage material with sealing effect. Histomorphometric analyses showed that non-crosslinked membranes provide improved hard tissue regeneration when compared to crosslinked ones.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Care; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34825280
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04262-3 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023Immediate implant placement provides a popular therapeutic option. However, compromised sockets may jeopardize the treatment outcome. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Immediate implant placement provides a popular therapeutic option. However, compromised sockets may jeopardize the treatment outcome.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the treatment outcome in terms of the implant survival rate and success parameters of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science up to January 2021. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main success parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis (risk ratio and mean difference).
RESULTS
In total, 43 studies with analysis of 4825 sockets were included. Compared with the noncompromised sockets, the compromised group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio=0.992; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.979 to 1.005; P=.246). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level at ≤12 months (mean difference [MD]=0.033; 95% CI=-0.012 to 0.078; P=.154) or esthetic parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Immediate implant placement in compromised sites does not appear to decrease the survival and success rates. However, randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes should be conducted to draw a definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of this treatment protocol in compromised sockets.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Tooth Socket; Esthetics, Dental; Immediate Dental Implant Loading
PubMed: 34772483
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.025