Effects of Post-Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation Versus Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yu, Xinbo; Teng, Fei; Zhao, Anda; Wu, Yiqun; Yu, Dian

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101734

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a systematic review, a pooled quantitative analysis including nine different ARP modalities revealed that ARP prevented horizontal (weighted mean differences [MD] = 1.99 mm; 95% CI 1.54–2.44; p < 0.001), vertical mid‐buccal (MD = 1.72 mm; 95% CI 0.96–2.48; p < 0.001), and vertical mid‐lingual (MD = 1.16 mm; 95% CI 0.81–1.52; p < 0.001) bone loss more than that associated with natural socket healing 17 . Another recent systematic review also reported higher success rates in implants placed after ARP (98.68%) compared to those exhibited by immediate implant placement (95.21%, p = 0.008) 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…17 Another recent systematic review also reported higher success rates in implants placed after ARP (98.68%) compared to those exhibited by immediate implant placement (95.21%, p = 0.008). 25 The current understanding and knowledge of the ARP technique for nonintact extraction sockets still lack clear scientific evidence. 26 Unlike intact four-wall extraction sockets, damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets exhibit histologically delayed wound T A B L E 1 Baseline characteristics of the enrolled patients in the DBBM-C and DPBM-C groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alveolar ridge preservation of damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets with bovine‐ and porcine‐derived block bone substitutes: A retrospective case–control study

Lee

Kim

Jeong

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAlveolar ridge preservation (ARP) was introduced to minimize postextraction alveolar bone loss and extraction socket remodeling; however, current knowledge of the ARP procedure for nonintact extraction sockets is still limited and inconclusive. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the difference between using deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM‐C) and deproteinized porcine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DPBM‐C) when performing ARP procedures in damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets based on clinical, radiographic, and profilometric outcomes.MethodsIn total, 108 extraction sockets were grafted with 67 DBBM‐C and 41 DPBM‐C. Changes in radiographic (horizontal width and vertical height) and profilometric outcomes were measured after the ARP procedure and before the implant surgery. Postoperative discomfort (including the severity and duration of pain and swelling), early wound healing outcomes (including spontaneous bleeding and persistent swelling), implant stability, and treatment modalities for implant placement were also assessed.ResultsRadiographically, the DBBM‐C group decreased by −1.70 ± 2.26 mm (−21.50%) and − 1.39 ± 1.85 mm (−30.47%) horizontally and vertically, and the corresponding DPBM‐C group decreased by −1.66 ± 1.80 mm (−20.82%) and −1.44 ± 1.97 mm (−27.89%) horizontally and vertically at an average of 5.6 months. There were no serious or adverse complications in any of the cases, and none of the measured parameters differed significantly between the groups.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, ARP with DBBM‐C and DPBM‐C showed similar clinical, radiographic, and profilometric outcomes in nonintact extraction sockets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar ridge preservation of damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets with bovine‐ and porcine‐derived block bone substitutes: A retrospective case–control study

Lee

Kim

Jeong

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic review aimed to juxtapose the clinical outcomes, including success rates, between delayed implant placement post-ARP and immediate implant placement. While detailed findings are not provided, this review emphasizes the relevance of examining different timelines of implant placement following ARP [ 54 ]. A retrospective cohort study involving 108 patients assessed the long-term (5 years) impact of ARP with xenograft bone mineral on peri-implant health, highlighting the potential long-term benefits of ARP on implant stability and overall peri-implant health [ 55 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, a systematic review aimed to juxtapose clinical data, including success rates, tissue preservation, aesthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed implant placement following ARP and immediate implant placement. This hints at a structured approach toward gauging patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, although the precise method of assessment such as standardized questionnaires or follow-up interviews was not elucidated [ 54 ]. In a related study [ 64 ], pain and aesthetic satisfaction post-ARP were assessed using visual analogue scales (VAS).…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancements in alveolar bone grafting and ridge preservation: a narrative review on materials, techniques, and clinical outcomes

Kim,

Kim

2024

Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This narrative review systematically explores the progression of materials and techniques in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). We commence by delineating the evolution from traditional ARP methods to cutting-edge alternatives, including platelet-rich fibrin, injectable bone repair materials, and hydrogel systems. Critical examination of various studies reveals these innovative approaches not only accelerate bone healing but also significantly improve patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction, pain perception, and overall quality of life. Emphasis is placed on the correlation between advanced ARP techniques and enhanced patient comfort and clinical efficacy, underscoring their transformative potential in dental implantology. Highlighting the effectiveness of ARP, the implant survival rate over a span of 5 to 7 years was high, showcasing the reliability and success of these methods. Further, patients expressed high aesthetic satisfaction with the soft tissue outcome, evidenced by an average visual analog scale (VAS) score of 94. This positive aesthetic appraisal is linked to the clinical health of implants, potentially due to the employment of tooth-supported surgical guides. The economic analysis reveals a varied cost range for bone graft substitutes ($46.2 to $140) and socket sealing materials ($12 to $189), with a noteworthy correlation between the investment in barrier membranes and the diminished horizontal and vertical ridge resorption. This suggests that membrane usage significantly contributes to preserving ridge dimensions, offering a cost-effective strategy for enhancing ARP outcomes. In conclusion, this review illuminates the significant advancements in ARP, highlighting the shift towards innovative materials and techniques that not only promise enhanced bone regeneration and reduced healing times but also improve patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes. The documented high implant survival rate and the beneficial economic implications of membrane use further validate the effectiveness of contemporary ARP strategies, paving the way for their broader adoption in dental implantology.

show abstract

“…Replacing a single failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone with immediate single implant placement and provisionalization (IIPP) has benefits in terms of reduced treatment time, avoidance of additional surgical interventions and a high level of patient satisfaction (Huynh‐Ba et al, 2018; Slagter et al, 2014). Some systematic reviews have shown comparable implant survival rates for implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation, while others have reported slightly lower IIPP survival rates (Cosyn et al, 2019; Mareque et al, 2021; Pommer et al, 2021; Yu et al, 2022). However, all reviews mention that longer follow‐up periods are needed for arriving at a definite conclusion (Donos et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5‐year randomized controlled trial

Zuiderveld,

Meijer,

Gareb

et al. 2024

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo assess the 5‐year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid‐buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction.Materials and MethodsSixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0), and at 1 (T1), 12 (T12) and 60 (T60) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre‐operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score–White Aesthetic Score), soft‐tissue peri‐implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed.ResultsAt the 5‐year follow‐up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was −0.6 (−1.1 to –0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (−0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft‐tissue peri‐implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups.ConclusionsThis 5‐year follow‐up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri‐implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

show abstract

Effects of Post-Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation Versus Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

Alveolar ridge preservation of damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets with bovine‐ and porcine‐derived block bone substitutes: A retrospective case–control study

Alveolar ridge preservation of damaged or periodontally compromised extraction sockets with bovine‐ and porcine‐derived block bone substitutes: A retrospective case–control study

Advancements in alveolar bone grafting and ridge preservation: a narrative review on materials, techniques, and clinical outcomes

Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5‐year randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About