Journal of Dental Research· 2014Q1
Effect of Alveolar Ridge Preservation after Tooth Extraction
- 440citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2014year
Short summary
Alveolar ridge preservation using bone grafting material significantly limits post-extraction ridge volume loss by 1.89 mm buccolingually and up to 2.07 mm in midbuccal height compared to extraction alone.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Alveolar ridge preservation limits post-extraction ridge volume loss compared to extraction alone.
- Buccolingual width reduction was limited by 1.89 mm (95% CI: 1.41, 2.36).
- Midbuccal height reduction was limited by 2.07 mm (95% CI: 1.03, 3.12).
- Flap elevation, membrane usage, and xenograft/allograft materials are associated with superior outcomes.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Alveolar ridge preservation strategies are indicated to minimize the loss of ridge volume that typically follows tooth extraction. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effect that socket filling with a bone grafting material has on the prevention of postextraction alveolar ridge volume loss as compared with tooth extraction alone in nonmolar teeth. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Literature screening and article selection were conducted by 3 independent reviewers, while data extraction was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcome measures were mean horizontal ridge changes (buccolingual) and vertical ridge changes (midbuccal, midlingual, mesial, and distal). The influence of several variables of interest (i.e., flap elevation, membrane usage, and type of bone substitute employed) on the outcomes of ridge preservation therapy was explored via subgroup analyses. We found that alveolar ridge preservation is effective in limiting physiologic ridge reduction as compared with tooth extraction alone. The clinical magnitude of the effect was 1.89 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 2.36; p < .001) in terms of buccolingual width, 2.07 mm (95% CI: 1.03, 3.12; p < .001) for midbuccal height, 1.18 mm (95% CI: 0.17, 2.19; p = .022) for midlingual height, 0.48 mm (95% CI: 0.18, 0.79; p = .002) for mesial height, and 0.24 mm (95% CI: -0.05, 0.53; p = .102) for distal height changes. Subgroup analyses revealed that flap elevation, the usage of a membrane, and the application of a xenograft or an allograft are associated with superior outcomes, particularly on midbuccal and midlingual height preservation.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Dental Research, 2014 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Oral Surgery
Oral SurgeryDentistry