Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development

Atieh, Momen A.; Alsabeeha, Nabeel H. M.; Payne, Alan G. T.; Ali, Sara; Faggion, Clóvis Mariano; Esposito, Marco

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010176.pub3

Cited by 52 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 153 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference in the circumference between the extracted tooth and the implant creates a gap; the “fixture‐socket gap.” Several studies suggested that the use of a bone‐substitute material (BSM) in the fixture–socket gap preserves socket volume, minimizes socket remodeling, and supports de‐novo bone formation 2,4,7 . This might improve the peri‐implant bone regeneration process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Zaki

Yusuf

Elkhadem

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture–socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. Materials and methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft‐tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid‐buccal mucosal recession. Meta‐analysis was performed using random‐effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence. Results After screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = −0.52 mm [95% CI −0.74 to −0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low). Conclusion BSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft‐tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies suggested that the use of a bone-substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap preserves socket volume, minimizes socket remodeling, and supports de-novo bone formation . 2,4,7 This might improve the peri-implant bone regeneration process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Zaki

Yusuf

Elkhadem

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A mean reduction of 3.8 mm in alveolar bone width and 1.24 mm in alveolar bone height has been reported after tooth extraction [ 5 ]. To solve this problem, alveolar ridge preservation is introduced to decrease resorption and facilitate the post-extraction prosthodontic and aesthetic restoration [ 6 , 7 ]. Alveolar ridge preservation involves the application of bone graft materials, with or without a barrier membrane, to the extraction sockets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This technique aims at minimizing external resorption of the alveolar ridge and maximizing bone formation within the socket. Bone graft materials consist of autografts, allografts, xenografts, as well as synthetic biomaterials [ 6 ]. Both allogeneic and xenogeneic bone transplantation may generate varying degrees of antigen reaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyphosphate-crosslinked collagen scaffolds for hemostasis and alveolar bone regeneration after tooth extraction

Jiao

et al. 2022

Bioactive Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After tooth extraction, the alveolar bone undergoes dimensional changes with a reduction in its buccal‐lingual width, which may reach 50% (Atieh et al. 2015). This bone loss occurs mainly in the first 3 months post‐extraction, after which there is a continuous process of resorption with an average of 0.5% to 1.0% per year (Araújo & Lindhe, 2005; Araújo et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up

Santos

Botelho

Machado

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To test primary stability of delayed implants placed in post‐extraction ridges preserved with autogenous mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) versus xenograft granules. Clinical, histological and pain experience outcomes were further assessed. Material and Methods From March 2018 to July 2020, patients requiring ridge preservation in preparation for delayed implant placement in post‐extraction sites were included. Participants were randomly allocated to either the test (MDM) or control group (xenograft granules) prior to ridge preservation. Visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption were measured every day for a week. Six months after preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histomorphometry prior to implant placement. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as two months after placement. Marginal bone loss and presence of mucositis/peri‐implantitis were registered up to 18 months after prosthetic loading. Results Fifty‐two patients (66 implants) completed the study. MDM and xenograft groups presented similar primary (77.1 ± 6.9 versus. 77.0 versus. 5.9) and secondary (81.8 ± 5.1 versus. 80.1 ± 3.8) implant stabilities. The percentage of newly formed bone in MDM (47.3%) was significantly higher than xenograft (34.9%) (p < .001), and the proportion of residual graft was significantly lower (12.2% in MDM and 22.1% in xenograft) (p < .001). No significant differences were found as far as clinical, radiographic and patient‐related outcomes. Conclusions Implants placed in sites preserved with MDM had similar primary stability in comparison to xenograft granules. MDM showed a significantly higher quantity of newly formed bone and lower amount of residual graft in histomorphometry results and equal clinical and patient‐related outcomes.

show abstract

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development

Cited by 52 publications

References 153 publications

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Polyphosphate-crosslinked collagen scaffolds for hemostasis and alveolar bone regeneration after tooth extraction

Autogenous Mineralized Dentin versus Xenograft granules in Ridge Preservation for Delayed Implantation in Post‐extraction Sites: A Randomized controlled clinical trial with an 18 months follow‐up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About