Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hard Tissue Outcomes of Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Abstract

Alveolar ridge preservation procedures are effective in minimizing postextraction hard tissue dimensional loss. The outcomes of these procedures are affected by morphology of extraction sockets, type of wound closure, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, and use of growth factors.

Ridge preservation in molar extraction sites with an open‐healing approach: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…From a clinical point of view, the difference between test groups 1 and 2 (especially at HW1: 1.02 ± 0.88 vs. 2.49 ± 3.34 mm), leaves room for further discussion regarding the >1 mm of mean difference between the two groups and the large standard deviation of test group 2. This could indicate that horizontal resorption in test group 2 necessitates further augmentation, depending on the individual situation, which is supported by recent systematic reviews favouring the use of barrier membranes (Bassir et al, 2018;Troiano et al, 2018 (Thoma et al, 2018). Less change in the MGJ following…”

“…From a clinical point of view, the difference between test groups 1 and 2 (especially at HW1: 1.02 ± 0.88 vs. 2.49 ± 3.34 mm), leaves room for further discussion regarding the >1 mm of mean difference between the two groups and the large standard deviation of test group 2. This could indicate that horizontal resorption in test group 2 necessitates further augmentation, depending on the individual situation, which is supported by recent systematic reviews favouring the use of barrier membranes (Bassir et al, ; Troiano et al, ). Moreover, a significantly less vertical ridge reduction in the midcrestal area of test group 1 (vs. test group 2) also indicates that NBCM had provided further stability to the underlying DBBM‐C, potentially leading to decrease surgical invasiveness in molar sites when implants are placed, that is prevention of the vicinity to the maxillary sinus or nerve structure.…”

“…All of these studies favoured ARP over natural healing in terms of maintaining ridge dimension, but high heterogeneity among studies should be considered (Cha et al, 2019;Lombardi et al, 2018;Walker et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2018), such as jaw and socket morphology, biomaterial, surgical technique (flap reflection and primary flap closure), healing period, and measurement (reference line and measurement level). Concerns over such heterogeneity were also stated well in recent systematic reviews Bassir et al, 2018;Troiano et al, 2018).…”

“…Recent systematic reviews with meta‐analyses have shown ARP to be significantly more effective in reducing physiologic ridge resorption after tooth extraction than naturally healed extraction sockets (Avila‐Ortiz, Chambrone, & Vignoletti, ; Bassir, Alhareky, Wangsrimongkol, Jia, & Karimbux, ; Troiano et al, ). Moreover, a high survival rate of implants placed in sites with ARP has been demonstrated (Apostolopoulos & Darby, ).…”

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

“…removable prosthodontics, [68][69][70] implant surgery, [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83] peri-implant conditions, [84][85][86][87][88] temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and orofacial pain, [89][90][91][92][93][94] mastication, 95 bruxism, [96][97][98] maintenance, 99,100 pathology and disease, [101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] oncology 109,110 (including a full issue of the Journal of Dental Research on "precision medicine" 111 ), pharmacology, [112][113][114][115] radiology, [116]…”