L Canullo1, M Del Fabbro2,3, S Khijmatgar2, S Panda2,4, A Ravidà5, G Tommasato3, A Sculean1, P Pesce6. 1. Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3. IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India. 5. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. paolo.pesce@unige.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, which grafting material best attenuates horizontal and vertical ridge resorption, as compared to spontaneous healing?, and (b) which material(s) promotes bone formation in the extraction socket? MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were screened in duplicate for RCTs up to March 2021. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Primary outcomes were ridge horizontal and vertical dimension changes and new bone formation into the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes and compare different grafting materials. RESULTS: Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets. Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage. According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation is effective in reducing both horizontal and vertical shrinkage, as compared to untreated sockets. NMA confirmed the consistency of XG for ridge dimension preservation, but several other materials and combinations like AG, Bio + AG, and AG + alloplasts, produced even better results than XG in clinical comparisons. Further evidence is needed to confirm the value of such alternatives to XG for alveolar ridge preservation. Bio + AG performed better than the other materials in preserving ridge dimension and platelet concentrates in new bone formation. However, alloplasts, xenografts, and AG + AP performed consistently good in majority of the clinical comparisons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: XG and Bio + AG demonstrated significantly better performance in minimizing post-extraction horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes as compared with other grafting materials or with spontaneous healing, even if they presented the worst histological outcomes. Allografts and other materials or combinations (AG + AP) presented similar performances while spontaneous healing ranked last.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, which grafting material best attenuates horizontal and vertical ridge resorption, as compared to spontaneous healing?, and (b) which material(s) promotes bone formation in the extraction socket? MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were screened in duplicate for RCTs up to March 2021. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Primary outcomes were ridge horizontal and vertical dimension changes and new bone formation into the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes and compare different grafting materials. RESULTS: Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets. Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage. According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation is effective in reducing both horizontal and vertical shrinkage, as compared to untreated sockets. NMA confirmed the consistency of XG for ridge dimension preservation, but several other materials and combinations like AG, Bio + AG, and AG + alloplasts, produced even better results than XG in clinical comparisons. Further evidence is needed to confirm the value of such alternatives to XG for alveolar ridge preservation. Bio + AG performed better than the other materials in preserving ridge dimension and platelet concentrates in new bone formation. However, alloplasts, xenografts, and AG + AP performed consistently good in majority of the clinical comparisons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: XG and Bio + AG demonstrated significantly better performance in minimizing post-extraction horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes as compared with other grafting materials or with spontaneous healing, even if they presented the worst histological outcomes. Allografts and other materials or combinations (AG + AP) presented similar performances while spontaneous healing ranked last.
Authors: Guy Huynh-Ba; Bjarni E Pjetursson; Mariano Sanz; Denis Cecchinato; Jorge Ferrus; Jan Lindhe; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: N J Kassebaum; A G C Smith; E Bernabé; T D Fleming; A E Reynolds; T Vos; C J L Murray; W Marcenes Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 6.116