Enamel matrix derivative promotes new bone formation in xenograft assisted maxillary anterior ridge preservation-A randomized controlled clinical trial

Influence of freeze-dried bone allograft on free gingival graft survival and alveolar ridge maintenance in socket seal procedures: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the viability of free gingival grafts (FGG) and assess clinical and radiographic changes in the alveolar ridge following socket seal surgery with or without freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight anterior and premolar tooth extractions were randomly allocated to 2 groups: socket graft of FDBA sealed with FGG (n = 15) and control with empty sockets sealed solely with FGG (n = 13). Photographs taken at 3, 7, 14, and 30 days post-surgery assessed FGG viability. Alveolar ridge volume was clinically evaluated via intraoral scanners before surgery and at 1 and 3 months post-surgery. CBCT scans taken immediately post-surgery and 3 months later assessed alveolar ridge dimensions.

RESULTS

FGG viability in both groups increased from day 3 and reached the maximum score on day 14. Alveolar ridge volume reduction at 3 months in the FDBA group was comparable to the control group. Buccal alveolar bone height reduction was significantly higher in the FDBA group than the control group, while palatal alveolar bone height was comparable. Alveolar bone width reduction was evident but not statistically significant between the groups. The FDBA group exhibited a significant alteration in bone volume compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Viability of FGG was not affected by graft filling materials. Sealing the socket with FGG effectively preserved socket integrity and ridge volume in minor socket defects using either graft filling material or not. This study was registered on 4 January 2021 on Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20210104001).

Biomaterial scaffolds in maxillofacial bone tissue engineering: A review of recent advances

Maxillofacial bone defects caused by congenital malformations, trauma, tumors, and inflammation can severely affect functions and aesthetics of maxillofacial region. Despite certain successful clinical applications of biomaterial scaffolds, ideal bone regeneration remains a challenge in maxillofacial region due to its irregular shape, complex structure, and unique biological functions. Scaffolds that address multiple needs of maxillofacial bone regeneration are under development to optimize bone regeneration capacity, costs, operational convenience. etc. In this review, we first highlight the special considerations of bone regeneration in maxillofacial region and provide an overview of the biomaterial scaffolds for maxillofacial bone regeneration under clinical examination and their efficacy, which provide basis and directions for future scaffold design. Latest advances of these scaffolds are then discussed, as well as future perspectives and challenges. Deepening our understanding of these scaffolds will help foster better innovations to improve the outcome of maxillofacial bone tissue engineering.

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.

Success of Xenografts in Alveolar Ridge Preservation Based on Histomorphometric Outcomes

Different xenograft approaches in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) are essential to understand relative to their histomorphometric outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study involved studying biomaterials of a xenograft nature that are used in ARP procedures, to compare the different approaches and evaluate their efficacy in relation to histomorphometric data. An electronic search was completed using the databases: Ovid (Medline), Google Scholar and Wiley Online Library, including a hand search for relevant articles and grey literature. Only randomised controlled trials, using xenograft biomaterials for alveolar ridge preservation procedures involving human studies, dated from 2010-2022 were included in the review. An initial search yielded 4918 articles, after application of the eligibility criteria, 18 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The two main xenograft groups found were of bovine origin and of porcine origin. The main histomorphometric outcomes evaluated included new bone percentage (N.B%) and residual graft percentage (R.G%). The mean N.B% for the bovine and porcine groups were 33.46% and 39.63% respectively and the mean R.G% for the bovine and porcine groups were 19.40% and 18.63% respectively. The current evidence suggests that the two main xenograft biomaterials used in ARP procedures after tooth extraction, which are of bovine and porcine origin, displayed effectiveness in producing new bone.

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.

Enamel Matrix Derivatives as an Adjunct to Alveolar Ridge Preservation-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically assess the current evidence regarding the adjunctive application of enamel matrix derivatives (EMDs) during alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following tooth extraction.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus to identify relevant randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). The primary outcome parameters of this systematic review were histomorphometric and radiographic data; secondary outcomes were the feasibility of implant placement after ARP as well as patient-related outcomes such as postoperative discomfort.

RESULTS

The search identified 436 eligible articles published from 2011 to 2022, but only five were ultimately included for data extraction (146 patients). Given the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. The authors' qualitative analysis showed marginally improved outcomes regarding an increased percentage of new bone formation after tooth extraction and a reduction in postoperative discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the potential value of EMDs in other fields of regenerative dentistry, more consideration should be given to EMDs as an adjunctive treatment option in ARP. However, more well-controlled randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the exact potential and impacts of EMDs.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of tissue engineering strategies for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction

Scientific advancements in biomaterials, cellular therapies, and growth factors have brought new therapeutic options for periodontal and peri-implant reconstructive procedures. These tissue engineering strategies involve the enrichment of scaffolds with living cells or signaling molecules and aim at mimicking the cascades of wound healing events and the clinical outcomes of conventional autogenous grafts, without the need for donor tissue. Several tissue engineering strategies have been explored over the years for a variety of clinical scenarios, including periodontal regeneration, treatment of gingival recessions/mucogingival conditions, alveolar ridge preservation, bone augmentation procedures, sinus floor elevation, and peri-implant bone regeneration therapies. The goal of this article was to review the tissue engineering strategies that have been performed for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction and implant site development, and to evaluate their safety, invasiveness, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes. A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of tissue engineering strategies utilized for the aforementioned indications. A total of 128 trials were ultimately included in this review for a detailed qualitative analysis. Commonly performed tissue engineering strategies involved scaffolds enriched with mesenchymal or somatic cells (cell-based tissue engineering strategies), or more often scaffolds loaded with signaling molecules/growth factors (signaling molecule-based tissue engineering strategies). These approaches were found to be safe when utilized for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction therapies and implant site development. Tissue engineering strategies demonstrated either similar or superior clinical outcomes than conventional approaches for the treatment of infrabony and furcation defects, alveolar ridge preservation, and sinus floor augmentation. Tissue engineering strategies can promote higher root coverage, keratinized tissue width, and gingival thickness gain than scaffolds alone can, and they can often obtain similar mean root coverage compared with autogenous grafts. There is some evidence suggesting that tissue engineering strategies can have a positive effect on patient morbidity, their preference, esthetics, and quality of life when utilized for the treatment of mucogingival deformities. Similarly, tissue engineering strategies can reduce the invasiveness and complications of autogenous graft-based staged bone augmentation. More studies incorporating patient-reported outcomes are needed to understand the cost-benefits of tissue engineering strategies compared with traditional treatments.

Efficacy of biologics for alveolar ridge preservation/reconstruction and implant site development: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review aimed to analyze the effect of autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), on the outcomes of ARP/ARR and ISD therapy (i.e., alveolar ridge augmentation [ARA] and maxillary sinus floor augmentation [MSFA]).

METHODS

An electronic search for eligible articles published from January 2000 to October 2021 was conducted. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of ABPs, EMD, rhBMP-2, and rhPDGF-BB for ARP/ARR and ISD were included according to pre-established eligibility criteria. Data on linear and volumetric dimensional changes, histomorphometric findings, and a variety of secondary outcomes (i.e., clinical, implant-related, digital imaging, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) were extracted and critically analyzed. Risk of bias assessment of the selected investigations was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 39 articles were included and analyzed qualitatively. Due to the high level of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative analyses were not feasible. Most studies in the topic of ARP/ARR revealed that the use of biologics rendered similar results compared with conventional protocols. However, when juxtaposed to unassisted healing or socket filling using collagen sponges, the application of biologics did contribute to attenuate post-extraction alveolar ridge atrophy in most investigations. Additionally, histomorphometric outcomes were positively influenced by the application of biologics. The use of biologics in ARA interventions did not yield superior clinical or radiographic outcomes compared with control therapies. Nevertheless, ABPs enhanced new bone formation and reduced the likelihood of early wound dehiscence. The use of biologics in MSFA interventions did not translate into superior clinical or radiographic outcomes. It was observed, though, that the use of some biologics may promote bone formation during earlier stages of healing. Only four clinical investigations evaluated PROMs and reported a modest beneficial impact of the use of biologics on pain and swelling. No severe adverse events in association with the use of the biologics evaluated in this systematic review were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of therapy after post-extraction ARP/ARR and ARA in edentulous ridges were comparable among different therapeutic modalities evaluated in this systematic review. Nevertheless, the use of biologics (i.e., PRF, EMD, rhPDGF-BB, and rhBMP-2) in combination with a bone graft material generally results into superior histomorphometric outcomes and faster wound healing compared with control groups.

The Applications of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Implant Dentistry: A Narrative Review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has been successfully used for periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects. Recently, its use for peri-implant bone regeneration has also been hypothesized. The aim of this paper is to review preclinical and clinical studies investigating the use of EMD in correspondence with titanium implants, alone or as an adjunct to other biomaterials. Clinical trials and case series with more than five cases were included. Seven in vitro studies evaluated the effect of EMD, placed on titanium surfaces: An increase in proliferation and viability of osteoblasts was observed in all but two studies. An increase in TGF-β1 and osteocalcin production, alkaline phosphatase activity, and angiogenesis was also reported. Nine animal studies investigated the use of EMD at implant placement or for bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects, and some of them reported a significant increase in bone formation or bone-to-implant contact. In four of eleven clinical trials on humans, EMD was successfully used at implant placement. The other seven evaluated the use of EMD in protocols for the treatment of peri-implantitis. In conclusion, the results of EMD seem promising, but further randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy.