-
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 -
Periodontology 2000 Oct 2023The morphology and dimensions of the postextraction alveolar ridge are important for the surgical and restorative phases of implant treatment. Adequate new bone... (Review)
Review
The morphology and dimensions of the postextraction alveolar ridge are important for the surgical and restorative phases of implant treatment. Adequate new bone formation and preservation of alveolar ridge dimensions following extraction will facilitate installation of the implant in a restorative position, while preservation of soft tissue contour and volume is essential for an aesthetic and implant-supported restoration with healthy peri-implant tissues. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) refers to any procedure that aims to: (i) limit dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after extraction facilitating implant placement without additional extensive bone and soft tissue augmentation procedures (ii) promote new bone formation in the healing alveolus, and (iii) promote soft tissue healing at the entrance of the alveolus and preserve the alveolar ridge contour. Although ARP is a clinically validated and safe approach, in certain clinical scenarios, the additional clinical benefit of ARP over unassisted socket healing has been debated and it appears that for some clinicians may represent an overtreatment. The aim of this critical review was to discuss the evidence pertaining to the four key objectives of ARP and to determine where ARP can lead to favorable outcomes when compared to unassisted socket healing.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Process; Tooth Socket; Overtreatment; Alveolar Bone Loss
PubMed: 37622682
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12508 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jul 2022To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post-extraction and at 4 months, the mid-buccal and mid-palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross-sectional socket and alveolar-process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post-surgical complications were also recorded.
RESULTS
BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (-0.52 mm ± 0.8/-0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (-2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (-2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid-socket cross-sectional area reduction of 4% (-2.27 mm ± 11.89), 1% (-0.88 mm ± 15.48) and 13% (-6.93 mm ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (-7.36 mm ± 10.45), 6% (-7 mm ± 18.97) and 11% (-11.32 mm ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.
CONCLUSION
GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Humans; Single-Blind Method; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 35488477
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13933 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To assess the impact of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRF administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy?
METHOD
A systematic literature search comprised three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRF for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included.
RESULTS
In total, 5,963 titles were identified with the search terms and by hand search. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT) met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Included studies focused on alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, osseointegration process, soft tissue management, bone augmentation, bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate or unclear. Nine studies showed superior outcomes for PRF for any of the evaluated variables, such as ridge dimension, bone regeneration, osseointegration process, soft tissue healing. Three studies failed to show any beneficial effects of PRF. No meta-analysis could be performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs.
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRF on ridge preservation and in the early phase of osseointegration. It remains unclear whether PRF can reduce pain and improve soft tissue healing. More research support is necessary to comment on the role of PRF to improve other implant therapy outcomes.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Bone Regeneration; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Humans; Platelet-Rich Fibrin
PubMed: 30306698
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13275 -
Journal of Periodontology Apr 2018Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) is an autogenous blood product with applications in dento-alveolar surgery. However, there is minimal information regarding its... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) is an autogenous blood product with applications in dento-alveolar surgery. However, there is minimal information regarding its optimal clinical application or efficacy. The aim of this multi-arm parallel randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of A-PRF alone or with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in improving vital bone formation and alveolar dimensional stability during ridge preservation.
METHODS
Forty patients requiring extraction of non-molar teeth and replacement with dental implants were randomized into one of four ridge preservation approaches: A-PRF, A-PRF+FDBA, FDBA, or blood clot. A-PRF was prepared at 1,300 rpm for 8 minutes. Non-traumatic extractions and ridge preservation was performed. After an average of 15 weeks healing, bone core samples were harvested at the time of implant placement for micro-CT and histomorphometric analysis. Ridge dimensions were measured immediately after extraction and before implant placement.
RESULTS
Significantly greater loss of ridge height was noted in the blood clot group (3.8 ± 2.0 mm) compared to A-PRF (1.8 ± 2.1 mm) and A-PRF+FDBA (1.0 ± 2.3 mm) groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences in ridge width reduction were noted between groups. Significantly more vital bone was present in the A-PRF group (46% ± 18%) compared to the FDBA group (29% ± 14%) (P < 0.05). Bone mineral density was significantly greater in the FDBA group (551 ± 58 mg/cm ) compared to blood clot (487 ± 64 mg/cm ) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates A-PRF alone or augmented with FDBA is a suitable biomaterial for ridge preservation. This study represents the first randomized controlled clinical trial comparing A-PRF with and without FDBA to FDBA alone for ridge preservation.
Topics: Allografts; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 29683498
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.17-0466 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2019Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures.
RESULTS
A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla.
CONCLUSIONS
The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Regeneration; Bone Transplantation; Consensus; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation
PubMed: 31038223
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13121 -
BioMed Research International 2019Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is an autologous platelet concentrate that consists of cytokines, platelets, leukocytes, and circulating stem cells. It has been considered to... (Review)
Review
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is an autologous platelet concentrate that consists of cytokines, platelets, leukocytes, and circulating stem cells. It has been considered to be effective in bone regeneration and is mainly used for oral and maxillofacial bone. Although currently the use of PRF is thought to support alveolar ridge preservation, there is a lack of evidence regarding the application of PRF in osteogenesis. In this paper, we will provide examples of PRF application, and we will also summarize different measures to improve the properties of PRF for achieving better osteogenesis. The effect of PRF as a bone graft material on osteogenesis based on laboratory investigations, animal tests, and clinical evaluations is first reviewed here. In vitro, PRF was able to stimulate cell proliferation, differentiation, migration, mineralization, and osteogenesis-related gene expression. Preclinical and clinical trials suggested that PRF alone may have a limited effect. To enlighten researchers, modified PRF graft materials are further reviewed, including PRF combined with other bone graft materials, PRF combined with drugs, and a new-type PRF. Finally, we will summarize the common shortcomings in the application of PRF that probably lead to application failure. Future scientists should avoid or solve these problems to achieve better regeneration.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Animals; Bone Regeneration; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Oral Surgical Procedures; Osteogenesis; Platelet-Rich Fibrin
PubMed: 31886202
DOI: 10.1155/2019/3295756 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
Annals of African Medicine 2019The overall success of dental implants depends on the crestal bone support around the implants. During the initial years of dental implant placement, the bone loss...
BACKGROUND
The overall success of dental implants depends on the crestal bone support around the implants. During the initial years of dental implant placement, the bone loss around the implants determines the success rate of treatment. Platform switching (PLS) concept preserves the crestal bone loss, and this approach should be applied clinically for the overall success of dental implants.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to discuss the literature dealing with the concept of PLS concept and preservation of marginal bone, the mechanism by which it contributes to maintenance of marginal bone, its clinical applications, advantages, and disadvantages, to assess its survival rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Google Scholar search was done to find out the studies involving PLS concept from 2005 to 2017. Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software.
RESULTS
Literature search revealed studies involving concepts of PLS, comparison of platform-switched and nonplatform-switched implants, case reports on PLS, and studies with histological and finite element analyses regarding PLS.
CONCLUSION
PLS helps preserve crestal bone around the implants, and this concept should be followed when clinical situations in implant placement permit.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Bone Density; Dental Abutments; Dental Implant-Abutment Design; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Prosthesis Fitting
PubMed: 30729925
DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_15_18