Feng Y, Zhao R, Li J, Yuan Z, Xu X, Gong J. Efficacy of autogenous particulated dentin graft for alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;
102:e36391. [PMID:
38050282 PMCID:
PMC10695520 DOI:
10.1097/md.0000000000036391]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 12/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Autogenous particulate dentin (APD) has been used as a bone graft material for bone augmentation, but the specifics of its effect on alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) are uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and histomorphometric performance of APD compared with blood clot healing or other grafted materials in ARP.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library and citation databases were searched until August 2, 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that employed APD for ARP. Two independent meta-analyses were performed based on the different control groups (Group I: blood clot healing; Group II: other grafted materials). Weighted or mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409339).
RESULTS
A total of 238 records were identified, of which ten studies with 182 participants were included. The meta-analysis indicated that APD resulted in fewer changes in horizontal ridge width (Group I: MD = 1.61, 95% CI 0.76-2.46; Group II: MD = 1.28, 95% CI 1.08-1.48) and labial bone height (Group I: MD = 1.75, 95% CI 0.56-2.94; Group II: P < .05) than the control treatments. Regarding histomorphometry, APD yielded a satisfactory proportion of vital bone area (MD = 10.51, 95% CI 4.70-16.32) and residual material area (MD = -8.76, 95% CI -12.81 to -4.71) in Group II, while there was no significant difference in Group I. Moreover, none of the secondary outcomes were significantly differed between groups.
CONCLUSION
Within this study limitations, APD effectively maintained the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the extraction sockets and exhibited favorable osteogenic properties and degradation capacity. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed to evaluate whether APD is superior to other substitutes for ARP.
Collapse