Maximillian Willenbacher1, Bilal Al-Nawas1, Manfred Berres2,3, Peer W Kämmerer4, Eik Schiegnitz1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. 2. Department of Mathematics and Technology, University of Applied Sciences Koblenz, RheinAhrCampus Remagen, Remagen, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Plastic Surgery, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to analyze the horizontal, vertical, and histological effects of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) versus the ones of unassisted socket healing, in the format of an up-to-date review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive electronic search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine was conducted for articles published up to June 2014 to identify literature presenting data on the topic of ARP. Only randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and prospective trials were included for meta-analysis. RESULTS: After screening 903 abstracts from the electronic database, we included 64 studies in qualitative and 18 in quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment characterized a medium risk of bias for the included literature. The meta-analysis showed a mean difference between test and control groups of approximately 1.31 to 1.54 mm in bucco-oral bone width and 0.91 to 1.12 mm in bone height. Additionally, the intergroup difference in percentage of vital bone was assessed to be inconclusive across the included studies. Implants could be inserted into the determined position without further augmentation in 90.1% of the experimental sites, while this was the case in only 79.2% of the control sockets. CONCLUSIONS: Resorption of the alveolar ridge cannot be totally stopped by ARP, while it still can be prevented compared with unassisted healing. No reliable predictions on the histological effects could be made due to limited data. Further on, no recommendation for a specific technique of ARP could be made. In conclusion, there is still need for ongoing research on the topic, even though the lower percentage of implant sites that needed additional augmentation in test sockets seemed to bring a patient benefit.
PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to analyze the horizontal, vertical, and histological effects of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) versus the ones of unassisted socket healing, in the format of an up-to-date review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive electronic search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine was conducted for articles published up to June 2014 to identify literature presenting data on the topic of ARP. Only randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and prospective trials were included for meta-analysis. RESULTS: After screening 903 abstracts from the electronic database, we included 64 studies in qualitative and 18 in quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment characterized a medium risk of bias for the included literature. The meta-analysis showed a mean difference between test and control groups of approximately 1.31 to 1.54 mm in bucco-oral bone width and 0.91 to 1.12 mm in bone height. Additionally, the intergroup difference in percentage of vital bone was assessed to be inconclusive across the included studies. Implants could be inserted into the determined position without further augmentation in 90.1% of the experimental sites, while this was the case in only 79.2% of the control sockets. CONCLUSIONS: Resorption of the alveolar ridge cannot be totally stopped by ARP, while it still can be prevented compared with unassisted healing. No reliable predictions on the histological effects could be made due to limited data. Further on, no recommendation for a specific technique of ARP could be made. In conclusion, there is still need for ongoing research on the topic, even though the lower percentage of implant sites that needed additional augmentation in test sockets seemed to bring a patient benefit.
Authors: L Canullo; M Del Fabbro; S Khijmatgar; S Panda; A Ravidà; G Tommasato; A Sculean; P Pesce Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Jorge Luís da Silva Pires; Jorge José de Carvalho; Mario José Dos Santos Pereira; Igor da Silva Brum; Ana Lucia Rosa Nascimento; Paulo Gonçalo Pinto Dos Santos; Lucio Frigo; Ricardo Guimaraes Fischer Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.623