A randomized controlled evaluation of alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft

Sadeghi, Rokhsareh; Babaei, Maryam; Miremadi, S A; Abbas, Fatemeh Mashadi

doi:10.4103/1735-3327.178202

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-two studies, consisting of 455 treated extraction sockets, utilized a xenogeneic bone substitute [23-25,28,29,34-40,42,43,46,48,51,54,55,58-60]. On average, the amount of reported resorption in the horizonal dimension was 1.47 (SD 0.92) mm, whereas the loss of ridge height amounted to 0.68 (SD 1.04) and 0.47 (SD 0.97) mm at the mid buccal and mid lingual sites, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review

Majzoub¹,

Ravidà²,

Starch‐Jensen³

et al. 2019

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional changes.Material and MethodsAn electronic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were performed, in addition to a manual search through all periodontics and implantology-related journals, up to December 2018. Inverse variance weighted means were calculated for all the treatment arms of the included trials for the quantitative analysis.ResultsForty randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Dimensional changes were obtained from clinical measurements and three-dimensional imaging. The average amount of horizontal ridge resorption was 1.52 (SD 1.29) mm (allograft), 1.47 (SD 0.92) mm (xenograft), 2.31 (SD 1.19) mm (alloplast) and 3.1 (SD 1.07) mm for unassisted healing. Similarly, for all the evaluated parameters, the spontaneous healing of the socket led to higher bone loss rate than the use of a bone grafting material.ConclusionsThe utilization of a bone grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation reduces the resorption process occurring after tooth extraction. However, minimal differences in resorption rate were observed between allogeneic, xenogeneic and alloplastic grafting materials.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review

Majzoub¹,

Ravidà²,

Starch‐Jensen³

et al. 2019

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The composition of vital bone formation recorded in the literature was highly variable, with an amount ranging from 19.3% [66] to 61% [67]. Attained differences between studies could be majorly due to different follow-up times and the degradation profile of the grafting materials [68]. In fact, bioceramics or xenogenic mineralized grafting materials seem to interfere with the earliest stages of socket healing, with the degradation and progressive substitution by mature bone tissue requiring several years, or being nonresorbable even in the long term [69].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Socket Healing in the Absence and Presence of Graft Materials and Autologous Platelet Concentrates: a Focused Review

Gomes

Daugėla²,

Poškevičius³

et al. 2019

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe present manuscript aims to critically detail the physiologic process of socket healing, in the absence or presence of grafting materials or platelet concentrates, addressing the associated molecular and cellular events that culminate in the restoration of the lost tissue architecture and functionality.Material and MethodsAn electronic search in the National Library of Medicine database MEDLINE through its online site PubMed and Web of Science from inception until May 2019 was conducted to identify articles concerning physiologic process of socket healing, in the absence or presence of grafting materials or platelet concentrates. The search was restricted to English language articles without time restriction. Additionally, a hand search was carried out in oral surgery, periodontology and dental implants related journals.ResultsIn total, 122 literature sources were obtained and reviewed. The detailed biological events, at the molecular and cellular level, that occur in the alveolus after tooth extraction and socket healing process modulated by grafting materials or autologous platelet concentrates were presented as two entities.ConclusionsTooth extraction initiates a convoluted set of orderly biological events in the alveolus, aiming wound closure and socket healing. The healing process comprises a wide range of events, regulated by the interplay of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors that determine cellular recruitment, proliferation and differentiation in the healing milieu, in a space- and time-dependent choreographic interplay. Additionally, the healing process may further be modulated by the implantation of grafting materials or autologous platelet concentrates within the tooth socket, aiming to enhance the regenerative outcome.

show abstract

“…A total of 60 eligible treatment arms from 36 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified 17–19,50,51,60,62,66,67,70,72,75–78,86,87,89,91,92,98,105–119 . Seventeen studies had included a control group of unassisted healing after extraction, 17–19,50,51,67,75,76,86,87,98,105,106,108,109,111,118 whereas the rest compared different ridge preservation modalities.…”

Section: Cost‐effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen studies had included a control group of unassisted healing after extraction, 17–19,50,51,67,75,76,86,87,98,105,106,108,109,111,118 whereas the rest compared different ridge preservation modalities. A particulate bone allograft, either a mineralized cancellous bone, 62,118 freeze‐dried bone allograft, 62,66,92,107,110,112 demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft, 17,91,92,116,117 or a combination of the latter two, 50,72,107,115 was used in 23 study arms. Fifteen treatment arms involved the application of a xenograft, either bovine bone mineral, 60,70,77,106,114,116,119 porcine bone mineral, 51,77,111 or a bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen 78,113,114,117 .…”

Section: Cost‐effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 60 eligible treatment arms from 36 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified . [17][18][19]50,51,60,62,66,67,70,72,[75][76][77][78]86,87,89,91,92,98,[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] Seventeen studies had included a control group of unassisted healing after ex traction, [17][18][19]50,51,67,75,76,86,87,98,105,106,108,109,…”

Section: Synthesis Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alveolar ridge preservation: Complications and cost‐effectiveness

Barootchi

Tavelli

Majzoub

et al. 2022

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alveolar ridge preservation is routinely indicated in clinical practice with the purpose of attenuating postextraction ridge atrophy. Over the past two decades numerous clinical studies and reviews on this topic have populated the literature. In recent years the focus has primarily been on analyzing efficacy outcomes pertaining to postextraction dimensional changes, whereas other relevant facets of alveolar ridge preservation therapy have remained unexplored. With this premise, we carried out a comprehensive evidence‐based assessment of the complications associated with different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation and modeled the cost‐effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities as a function of changes in ridge width and height. We conclude that, among allogeneic and xenogeneic bone graft materials, increased expenditure does not translate into increased effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapy. On the other hand, a significant association between expenditure on a barrier membrane and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge resorption was observed, though only to a certain degree, beyond which the return on investment was significantly diminished.

show abstract

A randomized controlled evaluation of alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review

The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review

Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Socket Healing in the Absence and Presence of Graft Materials and Autologous Platelet Concentrates: a Focused Review

Alveolar ridge preservation: Complications and cost‐effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About