Soft tissue healing in alveolar socket preservation technique: histologic evaluations

Quantitative Evaluation of Inflammatory Markers in Peri-Implantitis and Periodontitis Tissues: Digital vs. Manual Analysis—A Proof of Concept Study

Background and Objectives: In dentistry, the assessment of the histomorphometric features of periodontal (PD) and peri-implant (PI) lesions is important to evaluate their underlying pathogenic mechanism. The present study aimed to compare manual and digital methods of analysis in the evaluation of the inflammatory biomarkers in PI and PD lesions. Materials and Methods: PD and PI inflamed soft tissues were excised and processed for histological and immunohistochemical analyses for CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD15+, CD20+, CD68+, and CD138+. The obtained slides were acquired using a digital scanner. For each marker, 4 pictures per sample were extracted and the area fraction of the stained tissue was computed both manually using a 594-point counting grid (MC) and digitally using a dedicated image analysis software (DC). To assess the concordance between MC and DC, two blinded observers analysed a total of 200 pictures either with good quality of staining or with non-specific background noise. The inter and intraobserver concordance was evaluated using the intraclass coefficient and the agreement between MC and DC was assessed using the Bland–Altman plot. The time spent analysing each picture using the two methodologies by both observers was recorded. Further, the amount of each marker was compared between PI and PD with both methodologies. Results: The inter- and intraobserver concordance was excellent, except for images with background noise analysed using DC. MC and DC showed a satisfying concordance. DC was performed in half the time compared to MC. The morphological analysis showed a larger inflammatory infiltrate in PI than PD lesions. The comparison between PI and PD showed differences for CD68+ and CD138+ expression. Conclusions: DC could be used as a reliable and time-saving procedure for the immunohistochemical analysis of PD and PI soft tissues. When non-specific background noise is present, the experience of the pathologist may be still required.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development

BACKGROUND

Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.

Effects of Vitamin and Amino Acid-Enriched Hyaluronic Acid Gel on the Healing of Oral Mucosa: In Vivo and In Vitro Study

Background and Objectives: Wound healing is a dynamic process that can be compromised in patients with chronic and metabolic conditions or unhealthy lifestyles. Numerous medical substances designed for topical use, charged with compounds that promote the healing process, have been developed to improve wound healing, especially in compromised subjects. The present study aimed to extend our understanding of the in vivo effects of a hyaluronic acid gel charged with amino acids (HAplus gel, Aminogam gel^® Errekappa Euroterapici spa, Milan, Italy) and study the in vitro effects of the same gel charged with additional substances in an attempt to optimize its formulation. Materials and Methods: In a randomized controlled split-mouth clinical and histological trial, HAplus gel was tested on the gingival tissue of the lower third molar post-extraction socket. The gingiva was collected at the time of extraction (T0) and ten days after the extraction (T1) to be histologically analyzed. During the second stage of the study, culture media with HAplus gel and vitamin C and E at different concentrations (TEST) were tested on human gingival fibroblasts and compared to the HAplus-enriched medium (HA-Control). Results: Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of collected gingiva showed higher microvascular density and collagen fibers organized in closely packed and well-oriented bundles in sites treated with HAplus gel. In the in vitro study, all TEST groups showed an increased viability from 24 h to 48 h. After 24 h, the viability percentage in all experimental groups was below 100% of the HA-Control, demonstrating a mild toxicity. After 48 h from seeding, the TEST groups’ viability grew significantly compared to HA-Control. Conclusions: These encouraging preliminary results suggest that the use of HAplus gel enriched with vitamins C and E may be beneficial in patients with conditions that impair soft tissue healing.

Alveolar ridge preservation with an open-healing approach using single-layer or double-layer coverage with collagen membranes

Purpose

The aim of this prospective pilot study was to compare alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures with open-healing approach using a single-layer and a double-layer coverage with collagen membranes using radiographic and clinical analyses.

Methods

Eleven molars from 9 healthy patients requiring extraction of the maxillary or mandibular posterior teeth were included and allocated into 2 groups. After tooth extraction, deproteinized bovine bone mineral mixed with 10% collagen was grafted into the socket and covered either with a double-layer of resorbable non-cross-linked collagen membranes (DL group, n=6) or with a single-layer (SL group, n=5). Primary closure was not obtained. Cone-beam computed tomography images were taken immediately after the ARP procedure and after a healing period of 4 months before implant placement. Radiographic measurements were made of the width and height changes of the alveolar ridge.

Results

All sites healed without any complications, and dental implants were placed at all operated sites with acceptable initial stability. The measurements showed that the reductions in width at the level 1 mm apical from the alveolar crest (including the bone graft) were −1.7±0.5 mm in the SL group and −1.8±0.4 mm in the DL group, and the horizontal changes in the other areas were also similar in the DL and SL groups. The reductions in height were also comparable between groups.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, single-layer and double-layer coverage with collagen membranes after ARP failed to show substantial differences in the preservation of horizontal or vertical dimensions or in clinical healing. Thus, both approaches seem to be suitable for open-healing ridge preservation procedures.

Does ridge preservation following tooth extraction improve implant treatment outcomes: a systematic review: Group 4: Therapeutic concepts & methods

OBJECTIVE

(1) Primary focused question (Q1): to evaluate the effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on implant outcomes (implant placement feasibility, need for further augmentation, survival/success rates, marginal bone loss) compared with unassisted socket healing (USH) and (2) secondary focused question (Q2): to estimate the size effects (SE) of these outcomes in three different interventions (GBR, socket filler, socket seal).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register LILACS; Web of Science) and hand search was conducted up to July 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT) and prospective cohort studies with USH as controls were eligible in the analysis for Q1. RCTs, CCTs and prospective case series, with or without USH as control, were eligible for Q2.

RESULTS

Ten (8 RCTs, 2 CCTs) and 30 studies (21 RCTs, 7 CCTs, 2 case series) were included in the analysis for Q1 and Q2, respectively. The risk for bias was unclear or high in most of them. Q1: Implant placement was feasible in ARP-treated and USH sites. These implants presented similar survival/success rates and marginal bone levels. The need for further augmentation decreased when ARP was performed (Relative risk: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.3). Q2: The SE for implant placement feasibility was 98.5% (95% CI: 96.4-99.6) in GBR and 96.2 (95% CI: 93.1-98.2) in socket filler group. The SE for need for further augmentation was 11.9 (95% CI: 5.6-19.9) for GBR and 13.7% (95% CI: 5.0-25.6) for socket filler groups. GBR and socket filler presented similar SE for survival/success rates and average marginal bone loss. Limited data were available for implant-related outcomes in sites treated with socket seal.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to support the clinical benefit of ARP over USH in improving implant-related outcomes despite a decrease in the need for further ridge augmentation during implant placement. Similar implant placement feasibility, survival/success rates and marginal bone loss should be anticipated following ARP or USH. Currently, it is not clear which type of ARP intervention has a superior impact on implant outcomes.