Identification and Efficacy Ranking of Allograft and Xenograft for Extraction and Ridge Preservation Procedures

Natto, Zuhair S.; Yaghmoor, Wael; Bannuru, Raveendhara R.; Nevins, Myron

doi:10.11607/prd.3323

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although several studies in the literature reported an association between hypertension and periodontal diseases [27][28][29], we found that subjects with reported hypertension, who were living in areas where median household income was high, having lower bone loss compared to individuals who were living in areas where median household income was low. This is also supporting to the observation that individuals with high household income experienced lower difference in mean bone loss, which may indicate that access to healthcare system plays an important role by reducing the adverse effect of the outcome even among individuals who have predisposing conditions that put them at higher risk of the disease [30][31][32][33][34][35]. Nevertheless, limitations exist in this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To detect annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease (CVD) adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors. Methods: A total number of 132 subjects that reported having CVD from 2008 to 2015 (N = 132). For longitudinal data analysis, 58 subjects eligible for inclusion with at least two exposures of complete mouth set or repeated BW radiographs with at least one-year interval compared with a control group. Alveolar bone level on mesial and distal sites of posterior teeth was measured on bitewing (BW) radiographs available in the electronic health records of each subject. Results: Subjects who reported having cardiovascular diseases experienced higher annual mean alveolar bone loss (0.062 mm per year) compared to Subjects with no cardiovascular diseases (0.022 mm per year). Conclusion: Subjects who have reported CVD had higher rate of annual bone loss compared to subjects who did not have any CVD. This observation indicates that targeting high-risk individuals for risk assessment is fundamental to provide the best healthcare possible to those who are the most in need. Periodic examination and assessment of periodontal health is an essential key factor for better oral health, however, it has to be more emphasized and prioritized for individuals that are more prone to the disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The last search was conducted on 16 April 2018. To complement the database search, cross‐searching of cited references in 24 systematic reviews on the topic of ARP published until 1 May 2018 (Atieh et al., ; Avila‐Ortiz et al., ; Barallat et al., ; Castro et al., ; Chan, Lin, Fu, & Wang, ; Corbella, Taschieri, Francetti, Weinstein, & Del Fabbro, ; De Risi, Clementini, Vittorini, Mannocci, & De Sanctis, ; Del Fabbro et al., ; Horvath, Mardas, Mezzomo, Needleman, & Donos, ; Iocca et al., ; Jambhekar, Kernen, & Bidra, ; Lee, Lee, Koo, Seol, & Lee, ; MacBeth et al., ; Mardas, Trullenque‐Eriksson, MacBeth, Petrie, & Donos, ; Moraschini & Barboza, ; Morjaria, Wilson, & Palmer, ; Moslemi, Khoshkam, Rafiei, Bahrami, & Aslroosta, ; Natto, Yaghmoor, Bannuru, & Nevins, ; Ten Heggeler, Slot, & Van der Weijden, ; Troiano et al., ; Vignoletti et al., ; Vittorini Orgeas et al., ; Weng, Stock, & Schliephake, ; Willenbacher et al., ) was also performed. Additionally, in an attempt to identify relevant information in the grey literature, two open databases, OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu) and Grey Literature Report (http://www.greylit.org), were searched on 15 September 2018 using the term “alveolar ridge preservation.”…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ávila‐Ortiz

Chambrone

Vignoletti

2019

J Clinic Periodontology

373

517

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared to tooth extraction alone in function of relevant clinical, radiographic and patient‐centred outcomes. Material and Methods A comprehensive search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this review was conducted by two independent examiners. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these RCTs were collated into evidence tables. Endpoints of interest included clinical, radiographic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). Interventions reported in the selected studies were clustered into ARP treatment modalities. All these different ARP modalities were compared to the control therapy (i.e. spontaneous socket healing) in each individual study after a 3‐ to 6‐month healing period. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were conducted if at least two studies within the same ARP treatment modality reported on the same outcome of interest. Results A combined database, grey literature and hand search identified 3,003 records, of which 1,789 were screened after removal of duplicates. Following the application of the eligibility criteria, 25 articles for a total of 22 RCTs were included in the final selection, from which nine different ARP treatment modalities were identified: (a) bovine bone particles (BBP) + socket sealing (SS), (b) construct made of 90% bovine bone granules and 10% porcine collagen (BBG/PC) + SS, (c) cortico‐cancellous porcine bone particles (CPBP) + SS, (d) allograft particles (AG) + SS, (e) alloplastic material (AP) with or without SS, (f) autologous blood‐derived products (ABDP), (g) cell therapy (CTh), (h) recombinant morphogenic protein‐2 (rhBMP‐2) and (i) SS alone. Quantitative analyses for different ARP modalities, all of which involved socket grafting with a bone substitute, were feasible for a subset of clinical and radiographic outcomes. The results of a pooled quantitative analysis revealed that ARP via socket grafting (ARP‐SG), as compared to tooth extraction alone, prevents horizontal (M = 1.99 mm; 95% CI 1.54–2.44; p < 0.00001), vertical mid‐buccal (M = 1.72 mm; 95% CI 0.96–2.48; p < 0.00001) and vertical mid‐lingual (M = 1.16 mm; 95% CI 0.81–1.52; p < 0.00001) bone resorption. Whether there is a superior ARP or SS approach could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence. However, the application of particulate xenogenic or allogenic materials covered with an absorbable collagen membrane or a rapidly absorbable collagen sponge was associated with the most favourable outcomes in terms of horizontal ridge preservation. A specific quantitative analysis showed that sites presenting a buccal bone thickness >1.0 mm exhibited more favourable ridge preservation outcomes (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 3.2 mm), as compared to sites with a thinner buccal wall (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = ...

show abstract

“…Therefore, treatment planning should include consideration of maintaining alveolar ridge dimension, which is called alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) . Several systematic reviews and meta‐analyses have demonstrated that ARP significantly reduces ridge shrinkage compared to natural socket healing . However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the surgical methods and materials used for ARP …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar ridge preservation using an open membrane approach for sockets with bone deficiency: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Sun

Lim

Lee

2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Various approaches are used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP); however, there is no standard method or material. Purpose To investigate the effect of ARP with a dense polytetrafluoroethylene (d‐PTFE) membrane and freeze‐dried irradiated allogenic bone for sockets with bone deficiency. Materials and Methods Thirty‐four patients (with sockets exhibiting ≥3 mm hard tissue loss in ≥1 walls) were randomized to undergo natural socket healing (control) or ARP with a d‐PTFE membrane and freeze‐dried irradiated allogenic bone (test group). After 4 months, horizontal and vertical ridge changes were measured using cone beam computed tomography. Results Ridge width at l mm below the ridge crest demonstrated significantly less change in the test group (median =2.3; Q1 = 0.6; Q3 = 4.3 mm) than in the control group (median =3.9; Q1 =2.6; Q3 = 7.8 mm; P = .021). There was no significant difference between the two groups in horizontal ridge changes at 3 and 5 mm below the crest or vertical changes ( P > .05). Requirement for bone augmentation at implant placement was significantly reduced in the test group compared to the control group ( P < .001). Conclusion ARP with a d‐PTFE membrane and freeze‐dried irradiated allogenic bone substitute reduced horizontal bone resorption in sockets with bone deficiency.

show abstract

Identification and Efficacy Ranking of Allograft and Xenograft for Extraction and Ridge Preservation Procedures

Cited by 18 publications

References 9 publications

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Alveolar ridge preservation using an open membrane approach for sockets with bone deficiency: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About