-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2023As socket grafting with commercially available biomaterials has become popular, reports of the root submergence technique for ridge preservation have decreased. A...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
As socket grafting with commercially available biomaterials has become popular, reports of the root submergence technique for ridge preservation have decreased. A systematic review of this partial extraction therapy is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to review the root submergence technique as well as critically appraise the available data.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A review was carried out that observed the Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) strategy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focused question was "What are the outcomes of the different methods to submerge tooth roots for ridge preservation?" Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms that related to the root submergence technique were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases.
RESULTS
A total of 7709 abstracts and study titles were individually screened from the initial search results. After reviewing the full-text articles and applying the selection criteria, the final included search results totaled 47 full-text articles for in-depth review. In 10 animal studies, 258 roots were studied in 34 dogs and 7 monkeys. Histological data confirmed that coronal bridging (bone or cementum growth over the cut root) was a common outcome. Of the vital roots submerged, the majority maintained their vitality. In 37 human studies, 475 roots were submerged and reported on. Subjective ridge preservation was often reported. Among the adverse healing outcomes, exposure of the root through the mucosa was the most common. Nonetheless, in animals, 86.8% of roots remained submerged; in humans, 74.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
Root submergence is an established technique for ridge preservation. Exposure is a common complication, and correct technique may be key to its prevention. Further research of this partial extraction therapy is encouraged.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Humans; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34750013
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.009 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a proactive treatment option aiming at attenuating post-extraction hard and soft tissue dimensional changes. A high number of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a proactive treatment option aiming at attenuating post-extraction hard and soft tissue dimensional changes. A high number of different types of biomaterials have been utilized during ARP to seal the socket, but their effectiveness in terms of soft tissue outcomes has rarely been investigated and compared in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of different types of membranes and graft materials in terms of soft tissue outcomes (keratinized tissue width changes, vertical buccal height, and horizontal changes) after ARP, and to assign relative rankings based on their performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO). PUBMED (Medline), SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist were utilized to conduct the search up to 06 April 2021. English language restrictions were placed and no limitations were set on publication date. Randomized controlled trials that report ARP procedures using different sealing materials, assessing soft tissue as a primary or secondary outcome, with at least 6-week follow-up were included. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using mean, standard deviation, sample size, bias, and follow-up duration for all included studies. Network geometry, contribution plots, inconsistency plots, predictive and confidence interval plots, SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings, and multidimensional (MDS) ranking plots were constructed.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were included for NMA. Overall, the level of bias for included studies was moderate. Crosslinked collagen membranes (SUCRA rank 81.8%) performed best in vertical buccal height (VBH), autogenous soft tissue grafts (SUCRA rank 89.1%) in horizontal width change (HWch), and control (SUCRA rank 85.8%) in keratinized mucosa thickness (KMT).
CONCLUSIONS
NMA confirmed that the use of crosslinked collagen membranes and autogenous soft tissue grafts represented the best choices for sealing sockets during ARP in terms of minimizing post-extraction soft tissue dimensional shrinkage.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Grafting materials demonstrated statistically significantly better performances in terms of soft tissue thickness and vertical buccal height changes, when covered with crosslinked collagen membranes. Instead, soft tissue grafts performed better in horizontal width changes. Non-crosslinked membranes and other materials or combinations presented slightly inferior outcomes.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Collagen; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34669038
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04192-0 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Oct 2021This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in mandibular third molar extraction and provide suggestions for alleviating postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in mandibular third molar extraction and provide suggestions for alleviating postoperative complications.
METHODS
Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SinoMed were searched electronically on February 2020. Randomized controlled trials focusing on PRF usage in mandibular third molar extraction were included. Reviewers assessed the risk of bias in the included literature and extracted data independently using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included, comprising 991 patients who had mandibular third molar extraction. The topical application of PRF effectively reduced pain after extraction [MD=-12.06, 95%CI (-21.42, -2.71), =0.01], attenuated post-extraction swelling [MD=-1.42, 95%CI (-2.41, -0.44), =0.005], and promoted soft tissue hea-ling [MD=0.66, 95%CI (0.34, 0.99), <0.000 1]. PRF significantly reduced trismus and alveolar osteitis (<0.05). However, data could not prove whether PRF has any significant positive effect on bone healing compared with the control group (>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Limited clinical evidence indicates that applying PRF after mandibular third molar extraction could reduce pain, swelling, trismus and the occurrence of dry socket and promote soft tissue healing. However, the effect of PRF on bone healing requires further large-scale randomized controlled trials and unified measurement criteria.
Topics: Humans; Mandible; Molar, Third; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 34636211
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2021.05.017 -
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 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Apr 2022The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of the socket shield technique (SST). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of the socket shield technique (SST).
STUDY SELECTION
An electronic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wiley Online Library databases, and a manual reference search for articles published up to September 2020 was conducted. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate marginal bone loss (MBL), changes in buccal bone width (cBBW), pink esthetic score (PES), implant stability quotient (ISQ), implant failure rate, and complication rate between SST and conventional immediate implant placement (IIP). All pooled analyses were based on random effects models.
RESULTS
Sixteen relevant studies were ultimately selected by two independent reviewers: four randomized clinical trials (RCTs), four case-control studies, and eight retrospective studies. Meta-analysis revealed a trend toward lower MBL and cBBW and higher PES in the SST group. ISQ, implant failure rate, and complication rate were similar between the groups.
CONCLUSION
The included studies provided evidence that SST may be a feasible treatment option. However, this technique should not be used as a routine clinical protocol due to the lack of evidence-based consensus guidelines, large-scale RCTs, and long-term follow-up data. Therefore, there is an urgent need for well-conducted RCTs in this field.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34526435
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00262 -
Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial... Oct 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of a warm saline mouth bath (WSMB) in preventing dry socket after tooth extractions. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of a warm saline mouth bath (WSMB) in preventing dry socket after tooth extractions. A systematic search for randomized controlled trials published until August 30, 2020, in seven databases was conducted: Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry. The inclusion criteria were studies investigating the use of a warm saline mouth bath postoperatively in a population of participants who had a tooth extraction, compared to no mouth rinse at all/any other mouth rinse. The primary outcome assessed in the studies was the incidence of alveolar osteitis. Only eight randomized studies met all inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative analysis. Six of the studies compared WSMB with antimicrobial rinses, and two studies compared WSMB with no-rinse. This review found no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the incidence of alveolar osteitis between WSMB and other antimicrobial rinses. Based on the results of this review, WSMB has potential in reducing post-operative complications such as alveolar osteitis following a routine or surgical extraction of teeth. However, more studies are needed to validate these findings, as most of the studies reviewed had a high level of bias.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Mouthwashes; Postoperative Complications; Saline Solution; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34509363
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.09.001 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Dec 2021Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique (SST) may maintain the buccal bone plate and soft tissue levels, however, the potential clinical benefits of SST... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique (SST) may maintain the buccal bone plate and soft tissue levels, however, the potential clinical benefits of SST lack strong scientific evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of SST on dimensional changes of hard tissues, esthetic outcomes, implant stability, complication, and implant failure rates.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate implant placement with and without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.
RESULTS
A total of 982 studies were identified, of which, seven RCTs with 206 immediately placed dental implants in 191 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in the changes in buccal bone plate width (mean difference (MD) -0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.15; p < 0.0001) and height (MD -0.52; 95% CI -0.85 to -0.18; p = 0.002) in favor of SST. The use of SST was also associated with significantly less changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and better pink esthetic score than immediately placing implants without SST. The differences in implant stability, complication and implant failure rates were not statistically significant between immediate implant placement with or without SST.
CONCLUSIONS
The short-term complication and implant failure rates following immediate implant placement with or without SST were comparable. The SST has short-term positive effects on the changes in width and height of buccal bone plate, peri-implant marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes. Further evidence from long-term RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
SST can reduce changes in buccal plate width and height and improve the soft tissue profile following immediate implant placement in esthetic zone.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34380176
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12812 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2021The systematic literature review aims to assess patients' dental extraction with inherited bleeding disorders, to understand the type, dosage, and modality of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The systematic literature review aims to assess patients' dental extraction with inherited bleeding disorders, to understand the type, dosage, and modality of administration of the haemostatic agents for safe intra- and postoperational results.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search was undertaken in MEDLINE (PubMed) databases and Cochrane library for articles published in English from 1 January, 2010 till 31 October, 2020. Before the full-text articles were considered, titles and abstracts were screened.
RESULTS
A total of 78 articles were screened, from which 3 met the necessary criteria and were used for the review. Minor complications, such as postoperative bleedings from the socket and epistaxis, were observed, but they were resolved with proper medical care. No major fatal complications were reported. Generally, all the articles provided evidence of successful extractions with correct treatment plans made by haematologists and surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS
Available clinical trials demonstrate that local and systemic haemostatic therapies in combination are effective in preventing bleeding during dental extractions in patients with coagulopathies.
PubMed: 34377378
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2021.12201 -
Journal of Biological Regulators and... 2021Resorption of alveolar ridge after tooth extraction often compromises dental implant placement and esthetic. Alveolar ridge preservation is a common procedure performed...
Resorption of alveolar ridge after tooth extraction often compromises dental implant placement and esthetic. Alveolar ridge preservation is a common procedure performed in order to preserve the pontic site for a prosthetically ideal position. This procedure has already become an indisputable need. Tooth matrix as bone substituted material poses osteoconduction and osteoinduction properties and as autologous graft, this material is free of antigenic reaction. This biomaterial allows the threedimensional reconstruction of the bone, is easy to prepare and has a low cost. The aim of this review is to summarize and put in evidence the properties of tooth as bone substitute and its use in alveolar ridge preservation. Keyword: autologous tooth, autologous graft, bone regeneration, bone substitute, alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar ridge augmentation, socket preservation.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 34281325
DOI: 10.23812/21-2supp1-28