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

Abstract

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. 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 The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 22 July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 6),MEDLINE viaOvid (1946 to 22 July 2014), Embase via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 22 July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 22 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 22 July 2014), theWorldHealthOrganization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 22 July 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 July 2014), Scopus (1966 to 22 July 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 July 2014) and OpenGrey (to 22 July 2014). A number of journals were also handsearched. Trial authors were contacted to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials. There were no restrictions regarding language and date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of alveolar ridge preservation 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 Two reviewauthors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial.Corresponding authorswere contacted to obtain missing information. Results were combined using random-effects models with 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. Main results A total of 50 trials were potentially eligible for inclusion, of which 42 trials were excluded.We included eight RCTs with a total of 233 extraction sites in 184 participants. One trial was judged to be at unclear risk of bias and the remaining trials were at high risk of bias. From two trials comparing xenograft with extraction alone (70 participants, moderate quality evidence), there was some evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD-2.60mm; 95%CI -3.43 to -1.76) and width (MD-1.97mm; 95%CI -2.48 to -1.46). This was also found in one trial comparing allograft with extraction (24 participants, low quality evidence): ridge height (MD -2.20 mm; 95%CI -0.75 to -3.65) andwidth (MD- 1.40mm; 95%CI 0.00 to -2.80) and height. Fromtwo RCTs comparing alloplast versus xenograft no evidence was found that either ridge preservation technique caused a smaller reduction in loss of ridge height (MD -0.35 mm; 95%CI -0.86 to 0.16) or width (MD-0.44 mm; 95%CI -0.90 to 0.02; two trials (55 participants); moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques and extraction based on the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, complications, implant failure, or changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and probing depths of neighbouring teeth.We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes. Authors’ conclusions There is limited evidence that ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction. There is also lack of evidence of any differences in implant failure, aesthetic outcomes or any other clinical parameters due to the lack of information or long-term data. There is no convincing evidence of any clinically significant difference between different graftingmaterials and barriers used for ARP. Further long termRCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.