Postextraction ridge preservation by using dense PTFE membranes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Learn, unlearn, and relearn post-extraction alveolar socket healing: Evolving knowledge and practices

OBJECTIVE

This review was to offer a comprehensive analysis of currently available evidence on post-extraction alveolar socket healing, including i) the histological and molecular events during alveolar socket healing, ii) the dimensional ridge alterations after socket healing and controversies relating to sinus pneumatisation, iii) the patient-specific factors, procedural elements, and site-related variables influencing socket healing, iv) techniques and effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedure, and v) the philosophies and cost-effectiveness of ARP in clinical practice.

SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

To investigate the dimensional profiles of the alveolar ridge following unassisted healing, an overview of systematic reviews was conducted in February 2024 by two independent reviewers. Four electronic databases were searched in Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library between 2004 and 2024 to identify all relevant systematic reviews on post-extraction healing. A further manual search of reviews was also conducted. The articles were further reviewed in full text for relevance. The AMSTAR-2 appraisal tool was adopted to assess methodological quality. Current research pertaining to other listed objectives was objectively analysed in narration.

DATA

11 out of 459 retrieved studies were selected and ultimately covered in this review on the dimensional changes of alveolar ridge following natural healing: Seven systematic reviews and four systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The methodological quality of all included reviews was critically low.

CONCLUSION

This review thoroughly examines the healing profiles of post-extraction alveolar sockets and highlights the dynamic process with overlapping phases and the inter-individual variability in outcomes. ARP procedure is a potential strategy for facilitating prosthetic site development, while the current evidence is limited. Herein, an individualised and prosthetically driven approach is crucial. Further well sized and designed trials with novel biomaterials need to be undertaken, and the role of artificial intelligence in predicting healing and assisting clinical decision-making could be explored.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

By advancing our understanding of alveolar socket healing and its management strategies, clinicians can make more informed decisions regarding patient and site level assessment and selection, surgical techniques, and biomaterial choices, ultimately contributing to the enhanced healing process with reduced complications and improved quality of life for patients undergoing tooth extraction and dental implant treatments.

Alveolar ridge preservation in rat tooth extraction model by chitosan-derived epigenetic modulation scaffold

PURPOSE

Alveolar ridge preservation is a surgical technique used to prevent dimensional changes in the alveolar bone by dressing biomaterials in the extraction socket. Recently, a chitosan biphasic calcium phosphate loaded with trichostatin A (CS/BCP/TSA) scaffold was introduced as an excellent bone-regeneration material. This study aimed to explore the biological properties of released trichostatin A (TSA) and evaluate the potential of the CS/BCP/TSA scaffold in preserving the alveolar ridge in a rat tooth extraction model.

METHODS

In vitro biocompatibility, histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity, and osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cells were tested. For in vivo studies, the maxillary first molars (M1) of Wistar rats were extracted, and alveolar ridge preservation was performed using a CS/BCP/TSA scaffold or commercial bone graft. Micro-Computed Tomography (micro-CT), polyfluorochrome labeling, and histological analysis were used to evaluate the ridge-preservation ability.

RESULTS

The released TSA was cytocompatible. Inhibition of histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity and induction of osteogenic differentiation in MC3T3-E1 cells were confirmed. The socket dressing with the CS/BCP/TSA scaffold showed increased socket bone fill and preserved the buccal and middle aspects of the alveolar ridge compared with the conventional graft. Further analysis of the bone regeneration ability by histomorphometric and histological analyses demonstrated that CS/BCP/TSA showed a significantly higher potential to induce bone formation and complete healing in the extraction socket than the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CS/BCP/TSA scaffold is a novel candidate for alveolar ridge preservation.

Biomaterials for Alveolar Ridge Preservation as a Preoperative Procedure for Implant Treatment: History and Current Evidence

In implant treatment, the reduction and structural changes in the alveolar ridge that occur after tooth extraction limit the length, width, and placement position of the implant body, impair esthetics, and, in some cases, make implant placement difficult. To solve these problems, an alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) technique, which is performed simultaneously with tooth extraction, generally aims to promote bone regeneration and prevent alveolar ridge reduction by filling the extraction socket with bone graft material and then covering it with a barrier membrane to protect against the invasion of epithelial tissue. The extraction socket provides a favorable environment for bone regeneration throughout the healing period because the blood supply is abundant, and it effectively retains the bone graft material by using the remaining bone wall of the socket. In recent years, advances in bioengineering technology have led to the development of graft materials with various biological properties, but there is currently no clear consensus regarding the selection of surgical techniques and materials depending on the condition of the alveolar ridge. This review will provide a comprehensive survey of the evidence accumulated to date on ARP, present many cases according to the clinical situation, and discuss various treatment options.

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.

Influence of partially exposed nonabsorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of a partially exposed non-absorbable membrane (dPTFE) in Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) procedures on clinical, tomographic, immunoenzymatic, implant-related, and patient-centered outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a hopeless maxillary single-rooted tooth demanding rehabilitation with implants were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: dPTFE (n = 22)-tooth extraction followed by ARP using a partially exposed dPTFE membrane; USH (n = 22)-unassisted socket healing. Clinical and tomographic analyses were performed at baseline and after 3 months. After 3 months, patients received one dental implant. Implant stability quotient was obtained following implant placement. Bone-related markers were analyzed in bone biopsies using an immunoenzymatic assay.

RESULTS

Greater gain in Keratinized Mucosa Width (KMW) was observed in the dPTFE (1.33 ± 0.98 mm) compared to USH (0.59 ± 0.98 mm) (Mann-Whitney test, Z = 2,28, p < 0.05). USH showed a reduction of pain/discomfort, edema, and interference with daily life from the seventh day (Friedman/Wilcoxon test, maxT = 7.48, 8.00, and 5.92, respectively, p < 0.05). dPTFE presents a reduction of edema and interference with daily life from the 7th day and pain/discomfort from the 14th day (Friedman/Wilcoxon test, maxT = 5.40, 5.26, and 4.78, respectively, p < 0.05). The dPTFE group presented higher pain/discomfort in the 35 and 42 days and higher edema from 7 to 42 days postoperatively than USH group (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). No differences between groups were observed in the tomographic measures, immunoenzymatic analysis, and implant stability (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

dPTFE was superior to USH by increasing KMW gain. However, dPTFE without bone graft presented similar bone loss compared to USH. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization (NCT04329351).

Histomorphometry of Bone after Intentionally Exposed Non-Resorbable d-PTFE Membrane or Guided Bone Regeneration for the Treatment of Post-Extractive Alveolar Bone Defects with Implant-Supported Restorations: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim: The aim of the present study was to investigate quantitative histological examination of bone reconstructed with non-resorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (d-PTFE), left intentionally exposed in post extraction sockets grafted with anorganic bone material, and removed after four weeks, versus extraction and guided bone regeneration (GBR), performed two months later. Materials and Methods: This study was designed as a multicenter randomized controlled trial of parallel-group design. Patients were selected and consecutively treated in three centers in Italy. Patients randomly received intentionally exposed non-resorbable d-PTFE membrane (group A), or guided bone regeneration (group B), to treat post-extractive alveolar bone defects with implant-supported restorations. Outcomes were: the implant failure, any mechanical and biological complications, patient satisfaction, and qualitative and histomorphometric evaluation of the collected bone samples. Results: Eighteen patients were consecutively enrolled in the trial. Of these, six out of 18 patients were male. All the included patients were treated according to the allocated interventions, and no drop out occurred. No implant failure and no complications were experienced, and all the patients were fully satisfied with the function and aesthetic of their implant-supported restoration, without difference between groups. Morphological analysis revealed no sign of tissue reaction, such as fibrosis or necrosis. Regenerated bone was well mineralized in both groups, but it seemed more mature in group B than in group A. Three samples showed a minimal number of lymphocytes. Several blood vessels of small size occupied the medullary spaces, where the tissue resulted in more maturity, indicating the activity of the tissue in progress. The histomorphometric evaluation showed no statistically significant differences in the tissue volume fractions between the two groups of patients. Conclusions: With the limitation of the present study, buccal plate reconstruction with an intentionally exposed non-resorbable membrane is an effective and easy procedure for regenerating a resorbed buccal bone plate, reducing the need for guided bone regeneration.