Cargando…

The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Majzoub, Jad, Ravida, Andrea, Starch-Jensen, Thomas, Tattan, Mustafa, Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Stilus Optimus 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31620268
http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10306
_version_ 1783458487501586432
author Majzoub, Jad
Ravida, Andrea
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
Tattan, Mustafa
Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando
author_facet Majzoub, Jad
Ravida, Andrea
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
Tattan, Mustafa
Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando
author_sort Majzoub, Jad
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were performed, in addition to a manual search through all periodontics and implantology-related journals, up to December 2018. Inverse variance weighted means were calculated for all the treatment arms of the included trials for the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Dimensional changes were obtained from clinical measurements and three-dimensional imaging. The average amount of horizontal ridge resorption was 1.52 (SD 1.29) mm (allograft), 1.47 (SD 0.92) mm (xenograft), 2.31 (SD 1.19) mm (alloplast) and 3.1 (SD 1.07) mm for unassisted healing. Similarly, for all the evaluated parameters, the spontaneous healing of the socket led to higher bone loss rate than the use of a bone grafting material. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of a bone grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation reduces the resorption process occurring after tooth extraction. However, minimal differences in resorption rate were observed between allogeneic, xenogeneic and alloplastic grafting materials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6788425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Stilus Optimus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67884252019-10-16 The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review Majzoub, Jad Ravida, Andrea Starch-Jensen, Thomas Tattan, Mustafa Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando J Oral Maxillofac Res Literature Review OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the effect of different bone substitutes used for alveolar ridge preservation on the post extraction dimensional changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were performed, in addition to a manual search through all periodontics and implantology-related journals, up to December 2018. Inverse variance weighted means were calculated for all the treatment arms of the included trials for the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Dimensional changes were obtained from clinical measurements and three-dimensional imaging. The average amount of horizontal ridge resorption was 1.52 (SD 1.29) mm (allograft), 1.47 (SD 0.92) mm (xenograft), 2.31 (SD 1.19) mm (alloplast) and 3.1 (SD 1.07) mm for unassisted healing. Similarly, for all the evaluated parameters, the spontaneous healing of the socket led to higher bone loss rate than the use of a bone grafting material. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of a bone grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation reduces the resorption process occurring after tooth extraction. However, minimal differences in resorption rate were observed between allogeneic, xenogeneic and alloplastic grafting materials. Stilus Optimus 2019-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6788425/ /pubmed/31620268 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10306 Text en Copyright © Majzoub J, Ravida A, Starch-Jensen T, Tattan M, Suárez-López del Amo F. Published in the JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH (http://www.ejomr.org), 5 September 2019. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article, first published in the JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 UnportedLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work and is properly cited. The copyright, license information and link to the original publication on (http://www.ejomr.org) must be included.
spellingShingle Literature Review
Majzoub, Jad
Ravida, Andrea
Starch-Jensen, Thomas
Tattan, Mustafa
Suárez-López del Amo, Fernando
The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title_full The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title_fullStr The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title_short The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review
title_sort influence of different grafting materials on alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review
topic Literature Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31620268
http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10306
work_keys_str_mv AT majzoubjad theinfluenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT ravidaandrea theinfluenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT starchjensenthomas theinfluenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT tattanmustafa theinfluenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT suarezlopezdelamofernando theinfluenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT majzoubjad influenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT ravidaandrea influenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT starchjensenthomas influenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT tattanmustafa influenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview
AT suarezlopezdelamofernando influenceofdifferentgraftingmaterialsonalveolarridgepreservationasystematicreview