Alveolar ridge preservation reduces the need for ancillary bone augmentation in the context of implant therapy

Advancements in alveolar bone grafting and ridge preservation: a narrative review on materials, techniques, and clinical outcomes

This narrative review systematically explores the progression of materials and techniques in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). We commence by delineating the evolution from traditional ARP methods to cutting-edge alternatives, including platelet-rich fibrin, injectable bone repair materials, and hydrogel systems. Critical examination of various studies reveals these innovative approaches not only accelerate bone healing but also significantly improve patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction, pain perception, and overall quality of life. Emphasis is placed on the correlation between advanced ARP techniques and enhanced patient comfort and clinical efficacy, underscoring their transformative potential in dental implantology. Highlighting the effectiveness of ARP, the implant survival rate over a span of 5 to 7 years was high, showcasing the reliability and success of these methods. Further, patients expressed high aesthetic satisfaction with the soft tissue outcome, evidenced by an average visual analog scale (VAS) score of 94. This positive aesthetic appraisal is linked to the clinical health of implants, potentially due to the employment of tooth-supported surgical guides. The economic analysis reveals a varied cost range for bone graft substitutes ($46.2 to $140) and socket sealing materials ($12 to $189), with a noteworthy correlation between the investment in barrier membranes and the diminished horizontal and vertical ridge resorption. This suggests that membrane usage significantly contributes to preserving ridge dimensions, offering a cost-effective strategy for enhancing ARP outcomes. In conclusion, this review illuminates the significant advancements in ARP, highlighting the shift towards innovative materials and techniques that not only promise enhanced bone regeneration and reduced healing times but also improve patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes. The documented high implant survival rate and the beneficial economic implications of membrane use further validate the effectiveness of contemporary ARP strategies, paving the way for their broader adoption in dental implantology.

Socket Preservation and Guided Bone Regeneration: Prerequisites for Successful Implant Dentistry

Implant success is measured not only by implant survival but also by the long-term aesthetic and functional results. Implant placement should be prosthetically driven, with proper three-dimensional positioning for optimal support and stability of the tissues. Several procedures could be performed to ensure this requirement. While socket preservation (SP) is performed at the stage of tooth extraction, guided bone regeneration (GBR) takes place before or simultaneous to implant placement. The current review aims to summarize and discuss the procedures used for the preparation of the implant site, the preservation of the existing tissues, and their augmentation in cases of deficiency. An electronic search using Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus was conducted up to October 2023, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review summarizes the current knowledge on SP and GBR as prerequisites for future implant placement. Their indications, advantages, and limitations have been thoroughly evaluated and some recommendations for further research have been suggested. Implant placement in sites with severe bone resorption is extremely challenging. It necessitates the application of different surgical techniques, especially augmentation procedures, including guided bone regeneration. The need for such procedures could be avoided or at least minimized by the execution of SP after tooth extraction or immediate/early implant placement.

Non-invasive assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of different non-invasive methods for the assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness.

METHODS

Subjects with two adjacent dental implants in the central maxillary region were included in this study. Three different methods to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) were compared: digital file superimposition using Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) and stereolithography (STL) files of the arch of interest (DICOM-STL), DICOM files alone, and non-ionizing ultrasound (US). Inter-rater reliability agreements between different assessment methods were analyzed using inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

A total of 50 subjects with 100 bone-level implants constituted the study population. Assessment of FMT using STL and DICOM files demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability agreement. Mean ICC values of 0.97 and 0.95 were observed in the DICOM-STL and DICOM groups, respectively. Comparison between the DICOM-STL and US revealed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.88) and a mean difference of -0.13 ± 0.50 mm (-1.13 to 0.86). Comparison between DICOM files alone versus US showed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89) and a mean difference of -0.23 ± 0.46 mm (-1.12 to 0.67). Comparison between DICOM-STL and DICOM files revealed excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.96) and a mean difference of 0.1 ± 0.29 mm (LOA -0.47 to 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantification of peri-implant mucosal thickness via analysis of DICOM-STL files, DICOM files, or US assessment are comparably reliable and reproducible methods.

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

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2022 dental literature to briefly touch on several topics of interest to modern restorative dentistry. Each committee member brings discipline-specific expertise in their subject areas that include (in order of the appearance in this report): prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence the daily dental treatment decisions of the reader with an emphasis on innovations, new materials and processes, and future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of literature published daily in dentistry and related disciplines, this review cannot be comprehensive. Instead, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide valuable resource material for those willing to subsequently pursue greater detail on their own. Our intent remains to assist colleagues in navigating the tremendous volume of newly minted information produced annually. Finally, we hope that readers find this work helpful in managing patients.

Is alveolar ridge preservation an overtreatment?

The morphology and dimensions of the postextraction alveolar ridge are important for the surgical and restorative phases of implant treatment. Adequate new bone formation and preservation of alveolar ridge dimensions following extraction will facilitate installation of the implant in a restorative position, while preservation of soft tissue contour and volume is essential for an aesthetic and implant-supported restoration with healthy peri-implant tissues. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) refers to any procedure that aims to: (i) limit dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after extraction facilitating implant placement without additional extensive bone and soft tissue augmentation procedures (ii) promote new bone formation in the healing alveolus, and (iii) promote soft tissue healing at the entrance of the alveolus and preserve the alveolar ridge contour. Although ARP is a clinically validated and safe approach, in certain clinical scenarios, the additional clinical benefit of ARP over unassisted socket healing has been debated and it appears that for some clinicians may represent an overtreatment. The aim of this critical review was to discuss the evidence pertaining to the four key objectives of ARP and to determine where ARP can lead to favorable outcomes when compared to unassisted socket healing.

Soft tissue outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation with/without primary flap closure for periodontally damaged extraction socket: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The changes in soft tissue profile following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with/without primary flap closure (PC) in periodontally damaged sockets have yet to be discovered.

METHODS

For periodontally damaged non-molar extraction sockets, ARP with PC (group PC)/without PC (group SC) was performed using granule-type xenogeneic bone substitute material and a collagen barrier. Intraoral scans were performed at the time of ARP and 4 months thereafter. Superimposition of STL files was performed to examine tissue change on the soft tissue level. The level of mucogingival junction (MGJ) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patient (13 in group PC, 15 in group SC) completed the study. Soft tissue profile change was evaluated only when the measurement level was located on the non-mobile tissue. Group PC tended to shrink less on the long axis of the extraction socket than group SC (-4.3 ± 3.1 mm vs. -5.9 ± 4.4 mm at the 1 mm below the pre-extraction gingival margin, p > 0.05). Profilometric analysis (on the region of interest) also have a tendency of less tissue profile change in group PC than group SC (-1.0 ± 0.8 mm vs. -1.3 ± 0.5 mm, p > 0.05). The MGJ level change was not statistically significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05) even though the MGJ level was located more apically at 4 months in group SC compared with group PC.

CONCLUSIONS

Alveolar ridge preservation with PC tended to yield less soft tissue shrinkage than ARP without PC.

Modified alveolar ridge preservation to promote the osteogenesis of the distal surface of second molar after mandibular impacted third molar extraction: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the retrospective study was to explore whether the use of a modified alveolar ridge preservation technique impacts osteogenesis on the distal surface of the second molar after mandibular third molar (M3) extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 54 patients were enrolled in this study and divided into three different groups, including modified alveolar ridge preservation (MARP) group, traditional tooth extraction (TRA) group, and classical guided bone regeneration (GBR) group. In this study, MARP was designed with the highlights of the preservation of the alveolar bone superior and lingual to M3. These patients chose different surgical methods according to their own wishes for past infection or in order to prevent pericoronitis, and the operation time and surgical cost of each group were recorded. The periodontal conditions of the ipsilateral mandibular second molar (M2) and the height of its distal alveolar bone were measured during the postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

The probing depth, clinical attachment level, and osseous defect depth on the distal surface of the ipsilateral M2 in the MARP group were better than those of the TRA group at any time of the follow-up (P < 0.05 for all), but there was no statistical difference in the measurements when compared to the GBR group at 6 months after operation (P > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, MARP therapy not only improves the regeneration of periodontal osseous defects distal to the M2 after M3 extraction but also reduces the operation time and surgical cost.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper introduces a modified surgical method that can not only economically and effectively remove the impacted mandibular third molar but also obtain stable osteogenesis.

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this clinical trial were to evaluate the radiographic dimensional changes in alveolar ridge and patient-reported outcomes following tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using either deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) with EMD or DBBM alone.

METHODS

Participants requiring at least one posterior tooth extraction and ARP were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: ARP using either DBBM with EMD or DBBM alone. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were recorded immediately prior to extraction and at 6 months. Changes in alveolar ridge height (ARH) and alveolar ridge width (ARW) at 1, 3, and 5 mm were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 18 participants with 25 preserved sites were evaluated. ARH and ARW changed significantly from baseline to 6 months for both treatment groups but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant over the 6-month follow-up period (ARH: DBBM/EMD 1.26 ± 1.53 mm vs. DBBM 2.26 ± 1.60 mm; ARW-1 DBBM/EMD 1.98 ± 1.80 mm vs. DBBM 2.34 ± 1.89 mm). A significant difference, favoring DBBM with EMD group, was observed in percentage of sites that had less than 1 mm loss in ARH (54.5% sites in DBBM/EMD group vs. 14.3% sites in DBBM alone group). The participants' perception of bruising, bleeding, and pain in the first two postoperative days was significantly in favor of DBBM alone group.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in radiographic mean measurements of ARH and ARW following ARB with DBBM and EMD or DBBM alone.

Relationship between supracrestal soft tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypic features: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between periodontal supracrestal soft tissue dimensions (PSSTDs) and other phenotypic features in non-molar maxillary teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult subjects in need of comprehensive dental treatment were recruited. Periodontal phenotypic variables (i.e., facial and palatal gingival thickness [GT], alveolar bone thickness [BT], and PSSTDs, namely distance from the gingival margin to the bone crest defined as periodontal supracrestal tissue height [PSTH] and distance from the cementoenamel junction to the bone crest [CEJ-BC]) were recorded using cone-beam computed tomography scans. Standardized intraoral photographs were obtained to assess facial keratinized tissue width (KTW) and other anatomical parameters (i.e., tooth type, gingival architecture, and interproximal papilla height).

RESULTS

The study sample was constituted of 87 participants that contributed with a total of 522 maxillary anterior teeth. Differences in mean values of PSSTDs, KTW, GT, and BT were observed between tooth types and sex. Males exhibited a thicker GT and BT, and taller PSTH and KTW compared to females. Shorter CEJ-BC was associated with shorter PSTH, wider KTW, and thicker GT and BT. Shorter PSTH was associated with thicker facial BT. Notably, BT and GT were positively correlated at both facial and palatal sites, meaning that the thicker the gingival phenotype, the thicker the bone morphotype. Facial BT and facial GT were positively correlated with KTW. A flat gingival architecture was associated with the thick periodontal phenotype. Square teeth had shorter CEJ-BC, wider KTW, and thicker GT.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodontal phenotypic features vary across and within subjects, between facial and palatal sites at different apico-coronal levels, and as a function of sex and tooth type. The shorter the PSSTDs, the wider the KTW and the thicker the GT and BT. PSSTDs, particularly PSTH, should be considered an integral component of the periodontal phenotype.

Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

This in vitro study aimed at comparing the accuracy of freehand implant placement with static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), utilizing a keyless and a drill-key implant system and two guide-hole designs.

METHODS

A total of 108 implants were placed in 18 partially edentulous maxillary models simulating two different alveolar ridge morphologies. 3D digital deviations between pre-planned and post-operative implant positions were obtained. Guide material reduction was assessed in the keyless implant system for the manufacturer's sleeve and sleeveless guide-hole designs.

RESULTS

sCAIS using a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated smaller mean angular, crestal and apical deviations compared to sCAIS utilizing a manufacturer's sleeve and the freehand group (2.6 ± 1.6°, vs 3.3 ± 1.9°, vs 4.0 ± 1.9°; 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mm; and 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, vs 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm). Smaller angular and apical mean deviations were observed in the keyless implant system as compared with the drill-key implant system (3.1 ± 1.7°, vs 3.5 ± 1.9°, p = 0.03; and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.045). Overall, smaller angular, crestal, and apical deviations (p < 0.0001) were observed in healed alveolar ridges (2.4 ± 1.7°, 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm) than in extraction sockets (4.2 ± 1.6°, 0.8 ± 0.3 mm, and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm). Higher mean volumetric material reduction was observed in sleeveless than in manufacturer's sleeve guide-holes (- 0.10 ± 0.15 mm³, vs - 0.03 ± 0.03 mm³, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher final implant positional accuracy was observed in sCAIS for the keyless implant system, with a sleeveless guide-hole design, and in healed ridges. Sleeveless guide holes resulted in higher volumetric material reduction compared with the manufacturer's sleeve.

Influence of healing time on the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation using a collagenated bovine bone xenograft: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the healing outcomes in non-molar post-extraction sockets filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral with collagen (DBBM-C) as a function of time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in need of non-molar tooth extraction were randomly allocated into one of three groups according to the total healing time (A-3 months; B-6 months; C-9 months). The effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy via socket filling using DBBM-C and socket sealing with a porcine collagen matrix (CM) was assessed based on a panel of clinical, digital, histomorphometric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients completed the study (n = 14 in each group). Histomorphometric analysis of bone core biopsies obtained at the time of implant placement showed a continuous increase in the proportion of mineralized tissue with respect to non-mineralized tissue, and a decrease in the proportion of remaining xenograft material over time. All volumetric bone and soft tissue contour assessments revealed a dimensional reduction of the alveolar ridge overtime affecting mainly the facial aspect. Linear regression analyses indicated that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of bone and soft tissue modelling. Ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement was needed in 16.7% of the sites (A:2; B:1; C:4). Patient-reported discomfort and wound healing index scores progressively decreased over time and was similar across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Healing time influences the proportion of tissue compartments in non-molar post-extraction sites filled with DBBM-C and sealed with a CM. A variable degree of alveolar ridge atrophy, affecting mainly the facial aspect, occurs even after performing ARP therapy. These changes are more pronounced in sites exhibiting thin facial bone (≤1 mm) at baseline (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03659617).