ObjectivesThe purpose of this systematic review was to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the influence of two different factors: membranes and soft tissue graft influence for the extraction socket preservation.Material and MethodsA wide-ranging electronic search was performed in six databases up to 30 of November 2018 in order to identify all the clinical and randomized clinical trials performed in humans published with no data restriction. The inclusion criteria were extraction socket preservation with and without membranes or a soft tissue graft in a intact socket with at least six months of follow-up, have more than 12 patients or treat more than 12 sites per group and evaluated at least one of the primary outcomes measures (radiographic measures histological assessment, clinical measures).ResultsFrom an initial search of 1524 studies only 6 papers fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criterions. All the six selected papers, presented a wide heterogeneity of treatments used, evaluated variables and observation period that made impossible to recommend any specific techniques and/or material to achieve better results. The limited data found suggest that the used of membrane reveals to achieve better results. It wasn’t possible to observe in any clinical trial that compares the used of soft tissue graft.ConclusionsNew trials need to be performed in order to identify what specific techniques and/or materials are better to decrease the reabsorption of the socket after tooth extraction. Clinical trials designed to understand when/how the soft tissues grafts influence at the socket preservation is needed.

IntroductionThe task of Group II was to review and update the existing data concerning extraction socket preservation with or without membranes and soft tissue influence on post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation; extraction socket preservation using different biomaterials as bone grafts, growth factors, and stem cells. Special interest was paid to the dental implant placement outcomes within grafted sockets.Material and MethodsThe main areas evaluated by this group were as follows: quantitative and qualitative assessment of the effect of different alveolar preservation techniques performed immediately after tooth extraction, with or without membranes and/or soft tissue grafting, and the use of different bone substitutes, stem cells or growth factors in the postextraction socket. Evaluation of the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of primary and secondary outcomes were assessed. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: . TThe literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: . Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in the Preface chapter.ResultsThe results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. Three systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.

Background: Patients usually face negative psycho-emotional status during teeth extraction, therefore sedation and general anesthesia are often selected for wisdom teeth extractions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the difference between sedation and general anesthesia patients' psycho-emotional status and pain, using Universal Scale in Oral Surgery for Psycho-Emotional Rating (USOS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Modified Corah's Dental Anxiety scale (MDAS). Methods: In the period of 10/21/2019–01/31/2020 a prospective control study was held of adult patients for extraction of four wisdom teeth with sedation or general anesthesia. Patients were evaluated using self-reported questionnaires and physician questionnaire. Results: In total 53 patients were included in study: 43 in the sedation group (SG) and 10 in the general anesthesia group (GAG). Patients' psycho-emotional status was significantly (p < 0.05) more negative in both groups at the day of surgery than before it, but the difference of fear was higher in GAG (p < 0.05). Immediately after surgery GAG (3.80) felt statistically significantly (p < 0.05) more pain than SG (2.60). Conclusion: Sum of USOS, MDAS, dental fear data scores, pulse measurements directly correlated with time, i.e. statistics increased as surgery approached. The pain sensation differences were found only in the assessment immediately after surgery.