Bone crestal height and bone density after third-molar extraction and grafting: a long-term follow-up study

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term influence of xenogenic grafts on bone crestal height and radiographic density following extraction of teeth. The right and left third lower molars of 22 patients were surgically extracted, and one randomly chosen socket was filled with a xenogenic graft (Gent-Tech). The contralateral molar was left to heal naturally, serving as a paired control. Digital intraoral radiographies were taken at surgery and 2, 6, and 24 months after, to evaluate bone density (BD) and alveolar bone crest to cementoenamel junction distance. The data obtained were subjected to two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The significant decrease in cementoenamel junction distance observed for both groups was limited to the first 6 months. BD values increased significantly in the first 6 months, with no alterations observed up to 24 months for both groups. BD was higher for the experimental group at all time points (p < 0.05). Socket grafting with the xenogenic materials tested did not changed bone crestal height and bone radiographic density in the long term.

Computer-aided three-dimensional assessment of periodontal healing distal to the mandibular second molar after coronectomy of the mandibular third molar: a prospective study

“…Po.6 m was chosen because the major part of periodontal healing occurs within 3 months after surgery [ 9 ]. The mean reduction in the DBD depth was 1.28 ± 1.24 mm, which is slightly higher than that documented in other studies (0.62–1.25 mm) [ 4 , 6 , 13 ]. Hence, the root complex did not disturb periodontal healing of the M2M.…”

Evaluation of inorganic bovine bone graft in periodontal defects after third molar surgery

“…In addition, bone density was also improved in the IBB group similar to that found in previous studies. [ 22 25 31 32 ] However, we cannot confirm that exists a more calcified tissue into the 3M defect due to the presence of the bone substitute that was not resorbed in a 1 year follow-up. [ 20 ] To verify the quantity and quality of new bone formation, it would require a histological evaluation of the graft, however, according to Sammartino et al .,[ 25 ] bone biopsy in this region should not be done by the bioethics principles since that a second surgical procedure on the graft area is unnecessary.…”

Alveolar Preservation with Albumin and Gentamycin-Coated Allograft after Third Molar Tooth Removal: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Other study claimed bone grafting did not have effect on MBL loss after two years, however, preoperative MBL loss was less than 2 mm both in control and grafted groups. [20]. It may enforce the observation that alveolar preservation is not necessary when preoperative MBL loss is less than 3 mm.…”

“…To avoid it alveolar preservation with bone grafts or guided tissue regeneration may be considered, although MBL loss is not always significant after third molar removal [18,19]. Another study observed bone grafting has beneficial effect on MBL at the distal site of second molar, although MBL loss does not increase after six months when alveolar preservation was not applied [20]. It needs to be emphasized that periodontal pocket formation should be prevented when third molar removal is necessary.…”