Ridge preservation in periodontally compromised molar sockets with and without primary wound closure: A comparative controlled clinical trial

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare hard‐ and soft‐tissue changes after ridge preservation in periodontally compromised molar sockets with and without primary wound closure.Materials and MethodsForty molars with severe periodontitis requiring extraction were included and allocated to two treatment modalities. After tooth extraction, the sockets were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and covered with a bioabsorbable porcine collagen membrane. Primary wound closure was achieved in the control group, whereas the test group underwent minimally invasive open healing. The dimensions of the bone and soft tissue were recorded at baseline and 6 months.ResultsOver 6 months, the control and test groups had similar mean ridge heights at the center of sockets of 8.59 ± 2.47 mm and 8.47 ± 2.51 mm, respectively. The total volume of the control group increased from 1070.17 to 1713.52 mm3 for a mean gain of 643.35 mm3, whereas that of the test group increased from 992.51 to 1514.05 mm3 for a mean gain of 521.54 mm3. Compared with the test group, the control group showed a statistically significant decrease in keratinized tissue width of 1.08 ± 1.63 mm.ConclusionsBone dimensional changes following ridge preservation with and without primary wound closure were comparable. ARP without primary wound closure preserves more keratinized tissue than that with (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR‐ONN‐16009433).

Morphological evaluation of maxillary arch in unilateral buccally and palatally impacted canines: a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based study in Northern Iran

“…Similarly, Tadinada et al [ 21 ] demonstrated a significantly thinner alveolar bone on the impacted side at a depth of 2 mm and no significant difference in the depth of 6 mm; nevertheless, unlike our study, the thickness was significantly lower on the impacted side compared to the non-impacted side at a depth of 10 mm. It should be noted that the alveolar ridge resorption happens in a specific location in the absence of a specific tooth (extraction or impaction), and compared to vertical bone reduction, the amount of bone resorption is greater in the horizontal direction, which affects the thickness of the bone [ 28 , 29 ]. Thus, greater thickness on the impacted side in the present study can be explained by the possibility that the impacted teeth are closer to the ridge.…”