Does ridge preservation following tooth extraction improve implant treatment outcomes: a systematic review: Group 4: Therapeutic concepts & methods. Issue 11 (16th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mardas, Nikos; Trullenque‐Eriksson, Anna; MacBeth, Neil; Petrie, Aviva; Donos, Nikolaos
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 26:Issue 11(2015)Supplement
• Page Start: 180
• Page End: 201
• Publication Date: 2015-06-16
• Subjects: alveolar ridge preservation -- dental implants -- tooth extraction; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12639
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: 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.