R. Faria‐Almeida, Inesa Astramskaite-Januseviciene, A. Puišys, Francisco Correia
ABSTRACT Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the influence of two different factors: membranes and soft tissue graft influence for the extraction socket preservation. Material and Methods A wide-ranging electronic search was performed in six databases up to 30 of November 2018 in order to identify all the clinical and randomized clinical trials performed in humans published with no data restriction. The inclusion criteria were extraction socket preservation with and without membranes or a soft tissue graft in a intact socket with at least six months of follow-up, have more than 12 patients or treat more than 12 sites per group and evaluated at least one of the primary outcomes measures (radiographic measures histological assessment, clinical measures). Results From an initial search of 1524 studies only 6 papers fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criterions. All the six selected papers, presented a wide heterogeneity of treatments used, evaluated variables and observation period that made impossible to recommend any specific techniques and/or material to achieve better results. The limited data found suggest that the used of membrane reveals to achieve better results. It wasn’t possible to observe in any clinical trial that compares the used of soft tissue graft. Conclusions New trials need to be performed in order to identify what specific techniques and/or materials are better to decrease the reabsorption of the socket after tooth extraction. Clinical trials designed to understand when/how the soft tissues grafts influence at the socket preservation is needed.
{"title":"Extraction Socket Preservation with or without Membranes, Soft Tissue Influence on Post Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review","authors":"R. Faria‐Almeida, Inesa Astramskaite-Januseviciene, A. Puišys, Francisco Correia","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10305","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the influence of two different factors: membranes and soft tissue graft influence for the extraction socket preservation. Material and Methods A wide-ranging electronic search was performed in six databases up to 30 of November 2018 in order to identify all the clinical and randomized clinical trials performed in humans published with no data restriction. The inclusion criteria were extraction socket preservation with and without membranes or a soft tissue graft in a intact socket with at least six months of follow-up, have more than 12 patients or treat more than 12 sites per group and evaluated at least one of the primary outcomes measures (radiographic measures histological assessment, clinical measures). Results From an initial search of 1524 studies only 6 papers fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criterions. All the six selected papers, presented a wide heterogeneity of treatments used, evaluated variables and observation period that made impossible to recommend any specific techniques and/or material to achieve better results. The limited data found suggest that the used of membrane reveals to achieve better results. It wasn’t possible to observe in any clinical trial that compares the used of soft tissue graft. Conclusions New trials need to be performed in order to identify what specific techniques and/or materials are better to decrease the reabsorption of the socket after tooth extraction. Clinical trials designed to understand when/how the soft tissues grafts influence at the socket preservation is needed.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127040557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mindaugas Pranskunas, P. Galindo-Moreno, M. Padial-Molina
ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the reported literature on the use of stem cells or growth factors for post extraction treatment of the alveolar bone. Material and Methods A NCBI PubMed and PubMed Central databases search was conducted between September 2010 and August 2018, to identify animal or clinical studies reporting the clinical, radiographical and/or histological outcomes of socket preservation techniques after applying mesenchymal stem cells or growth factors. Only studies published in English language in the last 10 years were included in the study. Results Eleven studies were identified fulfilling the inclusion criteria. They evaluate a total of 386 post extraction sockets. The main tested materials identified in the current review were bone morphogenetic protein-2 - 3 studies and mesenchymal stem cells - 3 studies. Other comparators were bone morphogenetic protein-9, platelet-derived growth factor-BB homodimers and bone marrow. Overall evaluation indicate positive results for all test groups showing differences in final socket width between 0.64 and 1.28 mm favouring the test groups. Histologically, no particular differences are detected between test and control groups. Most of the studies present low risk of bias. Conclusions In general, the use of mesenchymal stem cells or bioactive osteogenic molecules favours bone regeneration after tooth extraction, as evaluated clinically, radiographically and histologically. However, specific differences that support particular recommendations are still unclear in light of the current published evidence. Future studies should include the standardization of the mesenchymal stem cells selection and purification as well as dosage and delivery methods of bioactive molecules.
{"title":"Extraction Socket Preservation Using Growth Factors and Stem Cells: a Systematic Review","authors":"Mindaugas Pranskunas, P. Galindo-Moreno, M. Padial-Molina","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10307","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the reported literature on the use of stem cells or growth factors for post extraction treatment of the alveolar bone. Material and Methods A NCBI PubMed and PubMed Central databases search was conducted between September 2010 and August 2018, to identify animal or clinical studies reporting the clinical, radiographical and/or histological outcomes of socket preservation techniques after applying mesenchymal stem cells or growth factors. Only studies published in English language in the last 10 years were included in the study. Results Eleven studies were identified fulfilling the inclusion criteria. They evaluate a total of 386 post extraction sockets. The main tested materials identified in the current review were bone morphogenetic protein-2 - 3 studies and mesenchymal stem cells - 3 studies. Other comparators were bone morphogenetic protein-9, platelet-derived growth factor-BB homodimers and bone marrow. Overall evaluation indicate positive results for all test groups showing differences in final socket width between 0.64 and 1.28 mm favouring the test groups. Histologically, no particular differences are detected between test and control groups. Most of the studies present low risk of bias. Conclusions In general, the use of mesenchymal stem cells or bioactive osteogenic molecules favours bone regeneration after tooth extraction, as evaluated clinically, radiographically and histologically. However, specific differences that support particular recommendations are still unclear in light of the current published evidence. Future studies should include the standardization of the mesenchymal stem cells selection and purification as well as dosage and delivery methods of bioactive molecules.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115519490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Ramanauskaite, Tiago Borges, B. Almeida, A. Correia
ABSTRACT Objectives To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets. Material and Methods A search protocol was developed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of implant survival rates (primary outcome), marginal-bone-level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters (i.e., bleeding on probing, probing depth), occurrence of peri-implant diseases, and aesthetic outcomes (secondary outcomes). Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up and a minimum of 10 patients having at least one dental implant inserted into the grafted socket were conducted. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for relevant articles published until 1st April 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model on the selected qualifying articles. Results The present analysis included 7 RCTs. The survival rate of the implants inserted into the grafted sockets ranged from 95 to 100% after 1 to 4 years of follow-up. MBL loss was found to be significantly greater for the implants placed in the non-grafted healed sites than for those placed in the previously grafted sockets (weighted mean difference = -1.961 mm, P < 0.0001). In terms of MBL changes, no difference was detected between immediately inserted implants versus implants placed in previously grafted sockets. None of the included studies reported on the clinical parameters or occurrence of peri-implant diseases Conclusions Implants inserted into the previously grafted sockets showed high survival rates and lower marginal-bone-level loss than the implants inserted into the non-grafted sites.
【摘要】目的评价牙槽内种植体的治疗效果。材料和方法制定了一项搜索方案，从种植体存活率(主要结果)、边缘骨水平(MBL)变化、临床参数(即探诊时出血、探诊深度)、种植体周围疾病的发生和美学结果(次要结果)等方面评估种植体放置在移植牙槽内的治疗结果。随机对照临床试验(rct)、对照临床试验和前瞻性研究进行了至少12个月的随访，至少10例患者至少有一颗牙种植体插入到移植的牙槽中。在MEDLINE (PubMed)检索到2019年4月1日之前发表的相关文章。采用随机效应模型对入选的符合条件的文章进行meta分析。结果本分析纳入7项随机对照试验。随访1 ~ 4年后，种植体在移植窝内的成活率为95% ~ 100%。结果发现，植入未移植愈合部位的MBL损失明显大于植入先前移植的槽位的MBL损失(加权平均差= -1.961 mm, P < 0.0001)。就MBL的变化而言，立即插入的种植体与先前移植的种植体之间没有差异。这些纳入的研究均未报道临床参数或种植体周围疾病的发生。结论与未移植的种植体相比，种植体插入先前移植过的种植体存活率高，边缘骨水平损失小。
{"title":"Dental Implant Outcomes in Grafted Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"A. Ramanauskaite, Tiago Borges, B. Almeida, A. Correia","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10308","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets. Material and Methods A search protocol was developed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of implant survival rates (primary outcome), marginal-bone-level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters (i.e., bleeding on probing, probing depth), occurrence of peri-implant diseases, and aesthetic outcomes (secondary outcomes). Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up and a minimum of 10 patients having at least one dental implant inserted into the grafted socket were conducted. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for relevant articles published until 1st April 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model on the selected qualifying articles. Results The present analysis included 7 RCTs. The survival rate of the implants inserted into the grafted sockets ranged from 95 to 100% after 1 to 4 years of follow-up. MBL loss was found to be significantly greater for the implants placed in the non-grafted healed sites than for those placed in the previously grafted sockets (weighted mean difference = -1.961 mm, P < 0.0001). In terms of MBL changes, no difference was detected between immediately inserted implants versus implants placed in previously grafted sockets. None of the included studies reported on the clinical parameters or occurrence of peri-implant diseases Conclusions Implants inserted into the previously grafted sockets showed high survival rates and lower marginal-bone-level loss than the implants inserted into the non-grafted sites.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"386 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122989745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Juodzbalys, Povilas Daugela, Onurcem Duruel, M. Fernandes, Pedro de Sousa Gomes, Samir Goyushov, L. Mariano, L. Poskevicius, Arturas Stumbras, T. Tözüm
ABSTRACT Introduction The task of Group I was to review and update the existing data concerning the physiologic process of socket healing, in the absence or presence of grafting materials or platelet concentrates, addressing the associated molecular and cellular events that culminate in the restoration of the lost tissue architecture and functionality. The second task was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for socket preservation/augmentation procedures and with reference to it suggest novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area. Material and Methods The main areas indicated by this group were as follows: socket healing process, including haemostasis and coagulation, inflammatory phase, proliferative phase, bone tissue modelling and remodelling; socket healing with graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates; extraction socket classifications; indications and reasons for extraction socket preservation/augmentation. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. The literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in Preface chapter. Results The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. One theoretical review-analysis and one systematic review were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.
{"title":"The 2nd Baltic Osseointegration Academy and Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Consensus Conference 2019. Summary and Consensus Statements: Group I - Biological Aspects of Tooth Extraction, Socket Healing and Indications for Socket Preservation","authors":"G. Juodzbalys, Povilas Daugela, Onurcem Duruel, M. Fernandes, Pedro de Sousa Gomes, Samir Goyushov, L. Mariano, L. Poskevicius, Arturas Stumbras, T. Tözüm","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10304","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction The task of Group I was to review and update the existing data concerning the physiologic process of socket healing, in the absence or presence of grafting materials or platelet concentrates, addressing the associated molecular and cellular events that culminate in the restoration of the lost tissue architecture and functionality. The second task was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for socket preservation/augmentation procedures and with reference to it suggest novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area. Material and Methods The main areas indicated by this group were as follows: socket healing process, including haemostasis and coagulation, inflammatory phase, proliferative phase, bone tissue modelling and remodelling; socket healing with graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates; extraction socket classifications; indications and reasons for extraction socket preservation/augmentation. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. The literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in Preface chapter. Results The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. One theoretical review-analysis and one systematic review were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127772880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Galindo-Moreno, Fernando Suárez López del Amo, R. Faria‐Almeida, B. Almeida, Inesa Astramskaite-Januseviciene, S. Barootchi, Tiago Borges, A. Correia, Francisco Correia, J. Majzoub, M. Padial-Molina, Mindaugas Pranskunas, A. Puišys, A. Ramanauskaite, A. Ravidá, T. Starch-Jensen, M. Tattan
ABSTRACT Introduction The task of Group II was to review and update the existing data concerning extraction socket preservation with or without membranes and soft tissue influence on post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation; extraction socket preservation using different biomaterials as bone grafts, growth factors, and stem cells. Special interest was paid to the dental implant placement outcomes within grafted sockets. Material and Methods The main areas evaluated by this group were as follows: quantitative and qualitative assessment of the effect of different alveolar preservation techniques performed immediately after tooth extraction, with or without membranes and/or soft tissue grafting, and the use of different bone substitutes, stem cells or growth factors in the postextraction socket. Evaluation of the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of primary and secondary outcomes were assessed. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. TThe literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in the Preface chapter. Results The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. Three systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.
{"title":"The 2nd Baltic Osseointegration Academy and Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Consensus Conference 2019. Summary and Consensus Statements: Group II - Extraction Socket Preservation Methods and Dental Implant Placement Outcomes within Grafted Sockets","authors":"P. Galindo-Moreno, Fernando Suárez López del Amo, R. Faria‐Almeida, B. Almeida, Inesa Astramskaite-Januseviciene, S. Barootchi, Tiago Borges, A. Correia, Francisco Correia, J. Majzoub, M. Padial-Molina, Mindaugas Pranskunas, A. Puišys, A. Ramanauskaite, A. Ravidá, T. Starch-Jensen, M. Tattan","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10309","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction The task of Group II was to review and update the existing data concerning extraction socket preservation with or without membranes and soft tissue influence on post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation; extraction socket preservation using different biomaterials as bone grafts, growth factors, and stem cells. Special interest was paid to the dental implant placement outcomes within grafted sockets. Material and Methods The main areas evaluated by this group were as follows: quantitative and qualitative assessment of the effect of different alveolar preservation techniques performed immediately after tooth extraction, with or without membranes and/or soft tissue grafting, and the use of different bone substitutes, stem cells or growth factors in the postextraction socket. Evaluation of the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of primary and secondary outcomes were assessed. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. TThe literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in the Preface chapter. Results The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. Three systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128453583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Majzoub, A. Ravidá, T. Starch-Jensen, M. Tattan, F. Suárez-López Del Amo
ABSTRACT 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.
摘要目的评价不同骨替代物用于牙槽嵴保存对拔牙后牙槽嵴尺寸变化的影响。材料和方法在MEDLINE (PubMed)、EMBASE (OVID)和Cochrane (CENTRAL)中进行电子文献检索，并手动检索截至2018年12月的所有牙周病和种植学相关期刊。为进行定量分析，对纳入试验的所有治疗组计算反方差加权均值。结果定量分析纳入40项随机对照试验。通过临床测量和三维成像获得尺寸变化。平均水平嵴吸收量分别为:同种异体移植1.52 mm (SD 1.29)、异种移植1.47 mm (SD 0.92)、同种异体2.31 mm (SD 1.19)、非辅助愈合3.1 mm (SD 1.07)。同样，在所有评估的参数中，与使用植骨材料相比，窝腔的自发愈合导致更高的骨丢失率。结论采用植骨材料保存牙槽嵴可减少拔牙后牙槽嵴的吸收。然而，在同种异体、异种异体和同种异体移植材料之间观察到的吸收率差异很小。
{"title":"The Influence of Different Grafting Materials on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review","authors":"J. Majzoub, A. Ravidá, T. Starch-Jensen, M. Tattan, F. Suárez-López Del Amo","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10306","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT 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.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115482504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Juodzbalys, Arturas Stumbras, Samir Goyushov, Onurcem Duruel, T. Tözüm
ABSTRACT Objectives The aim of present study was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for socket preservation/augmentation procedures and with reference to it suggest novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area. Material and Methods The search protocol used the electronic MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 1 2009 and May 1 2019. The search included only human studies published in English. Outcomes were the indications and reasons for socket preservation/augmentation and classification of extraction sockets. Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for the study. Although there are various types of extraction socket classifications none of them could completely evaluate all morphological parameters of alveolar ridge. Furthermore, present study revealed that indications for extraction socket preservation/augmentation have wider spectrum than socket morphology and are related to surrounding tissue anatomy or dental implantation operation indications and timing. Based on currently proposed extraction socket classifications and rationales, a novel decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area was suggested. Conclusions The need of extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction should be determined by the aesthetic, functional and risk-related viewpoint. A novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic zones can be useful tool in socket preservation/augmentation procedures.
{"title":"Morphological Classification of Extraction Sockets and Clinical Decision Tree for Socket Preservation/Augmentation after Tooth Extraction: a Systematic Review","authors":"G. Juodzbalys, Arturas Stumbras, Samir Goyushov, Onurcem Duruel, T. Tözüm","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10303","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives The aim of present study was to review current literature concerning extraction socket classification immediately following tooth extraction and the rationales for socket preservation/augmentation procedures and with reference to it suggest novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area. Material and Methods The search protocol used the electronic MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 1 2009 and May 1 2019. The search included only human studies published in English. Outcomes were the indications and reasons for socket preservation/augmentation and classification of extraction sockets. Results Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for the study. Although there are various types of extraction socket classifications none of them could completely evaluate all morphological parameters of alveolar ridge. Furthermore, present study revealed that indications for extraction socket preservation/augmentation have wider spectrum than socket morphology and are related to surrounding tissue anatomy or dental implantation operation indications and timing. Based on currently proposed extraction socket classifications and rationales, a novel decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic area was suggested. Conclusions The need of extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction should be determined by the aesthetic, functional and risk-related viewpoint. A novel clinical decision tree for extraction socket preservation/augmentation immediately after tooth extraction in aesthetic and non-aesthetic zones can be useful tool in socket preservation/augmentation procedures.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128888282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michal M. Kawecki, I. Nedeva, J. Iloya, T. Macfarlane
ABSTRACT Objectives The purpose of this project was to determine the level of mouth cancer awareness and to investigate the associated factors in a United Kingdom (UK) general population sample. Material and Methods Adult Dental Health Survey (2010) was conducted in a sample of 3,353 adult residents in the Grampian region of the UK (adjusted participation rate 58%). Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of questions on oral health, health behaviour, quality of life and cancer awareness. Results Overall, 81% of participants were aware of mouth cancer. This was associated with younger age, higher levels of education and better general health. Current smokers and alcohol drinkers were more aware of mouth cancer. When asked about risk factors for mouth cancer, the following were identified by the respondents: smoking (84%), poor oral hygiene (60%), drinking alcohol heavily (59%), poor diet (37%), stress (15%), being overweight (6%), drinking hot liquids (5%), eating spicy food (3%), using mouthwash (2%) and kissing someone (1%). Smokers were more likely to identify smoking as a risk factor for mouth cancer. Similarly, those who consumed alcohol almost daily were more likely to identify heavy alcohol drinking as a risk factor. Conclusions Awareness of mouth cancer is high in respondents from the general population, and participants were able to identify the most important risk factors. Knowledge of tobacco and alcohol as risk factors was highest amongst those exposed to them. The study proposed that the prevention strategies should focus not only on increasing knowledge, but also on changing health behaviour.
{"title":"Mouth Cancer Awareness in General Population: Results from Grampian Region of Scotland, United Kingdom","authors":"Michal M. Kawecki, I. Nedeva, J. Iloya, T. Macfarlane","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10203","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives The purpose of this project was to determine the level of mouth cancer awareness and to investigate the associated factors in a United Kingdom (UK) general population sample. Material and Methods Adult Dental Health Survey (2010) was conducted in a sample of 3,353 adult residents in the Grampian region of the UK (adjusted participation rate 58%). Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of questions on oral health, health behaviour, quality of life and cancer awareness. Results Overall, 81% of participants were aware of mouth cancer. This was associated with younger age, higher levels of education and better general health. Current smokers and alcohol drinkers were more aware of mouth cancer. When asked about risk factors for mouth cancer, the following were identified by the respondents: smoking (84%), poor oral hygiene (60%), drinking alcohol heavily (59%), poor diet (37%), stress (15%), being overweight (6%), drinking hot liquids (5%), eating spicy food (3%), using mouthwash (2%) and kissing someone (1%). Smokers were more likely to identify smoking as a risk factor for mouth cancer. Similarly, those who consumed alcohol almost daily were more likely to identify heavy alcohol drinking as a risk factor. Conclusions Awareness of mouth cancer is high in respondents from the general population, and participants were able to identify the most important risk factors. Knowledge of tobacco and alcohol as risk factors was highest amongst those exposed to them. The study proposed that the prevention strategies should focus not only on increasing knowledge, but also on changing health behaviour.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124571665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the location of the mandibular canal at the mental foramen region that is essential in order to prevent injuries to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during mandibular surgical procedures. Material and Methods The position of the mandibular canal was analysed using cone-beam computed tomography images from 300 Turkish patients, who were referred to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University for various complaints. The distances of the mandibular canal to the outer superior (D1), inferior (D2), buccal (D3), and lingual (D4) cortical margins were measured at 2 mm distal to the mental foramen. Results There were 148 (49.3%) males and 152 (50.7%) females with ages ranging from 15 to 74 years (39.15 [SD 17.8]). D1 was significantly greater than D2 and D3 was significantly greater than D4 on both left and right sides. While the mean D1, D2, and D4 in males were significantly greater than in females on both left and right sides. There was no significant difference between D3 in males and females on both left and right sides. Conclusions The results showed that the mandibular canal was vertically located nearer to the inferior cortical border and horizontally nearer to the lingual cortical border of the mandible at the mental foramen region. Knowledge of the distances of mandibular canal to the outer cortical margins at this region of the mandible will be helpful for surgical procedures.
{"title":"Localization of the Mandibular Canal in a Turkish Population: a Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study","authors":"F. Kalabalık, E. Aytuğar","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10202","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the location of the mandibular canal at the mental foramen region that is essential in order to prevent injuries to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during mandibular surgical procedures. Material and Methods The position of the mandibular canal was analysed using cone-beam computed tomography images from 300 Turkish patients, who were referred to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University for various complaints. The distances of the mandibular canal to the outer superior (D1), inferior (D2), buccal (D3), and lingual (D4) cortical margins were measured at 2 mm distal to the mental foramen. Results There were 148 (49.3%) males and 152 (50.7%) females with ages ranging from 15 to 74 years (39.15 [SD 17.8]). D1 was significantly greater than D2 and D3 was significantly greater than D4 on both left and right sides. While the mean D1, D2, and D4 in males were significantly greater than in females on both left and right sides. There was no significant difference between D3 in males and females on both left and right sides. Conclusions The results showed that the mandibular canal was vertically located nearer to the inferior cortical border and horizontally nearer to the lingual cortical border of the mandible at the mental foramen region. Knowledge of the distances of mandibular canal to the outer cortical margins at this region of the mandible will be helpful for surgical procedures.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127203579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joana Gomes dos Santos, Ana Paula Oliveira Reis Durão, António Cabral de Campos Felino, Ricardo Manuel Casaleiro Lobo de Faria de Almeida
ABSTRACT Objectives This study aims to determine if there are enough buccal alveolar bone thickness to perform an immediate dental implant placement in anterior and posterior maxillary teeth. Material and Methods A total of 1463 teeth were examined, from 202 cone-beam computed tomography scans with voxel sizes of 0.15 mm. On each tooth, the following measures were determined: the alveolar bone thickness in two locations; the vertical distance between the buccal alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction; the angle between the tooth’s long axis and the alveolar bone axial inclination in the sagittal plane. Results In the most coronal location of maxillary teeth, the thickness of alveolar bone was lower than 0.6 (SD 0.6) mm in 50% of the teeth, and in the middle of the root the bone thickness was, on average, 0.96 (SD 0.6) mm. For the same maxillary teeth, the vertical distance between the buccal alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction and the angulation measured were, on average, 3.6 (SD 1.2) mm and 12.1º (SD 1.4º), respectively. Conclusions The present study revealed that in most cases the thickness of buccal alveolar bone was less than 1 mm. Consequently, in such cases, immediate dental implant placement operation is not recommended, or should be combined with bone regeneration techniques.
{"title":"Analysis of the Buccal Bone Plate, Root Inclination and Alveolar Bone Dimensions in the Jawbone. A Descriptive Study Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography","authors":"Joana Gomes dos Santos, Ana Paula Oliveira Reis Durão, António Cabral de Campos Felino, Ricardo Manuel Casaleiro Lobo de Faria de Almeida","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10204","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives This study aims to determine if there are enough buccal alveolar bone thickness to perform an immediate dental implant placement in anterior and posterior maxillary teeth. Material and Methods A total of 1463 teeth were examined, from 202 cone-beam computed tomography scans with voxel sizes of 0.15 mm. On each tooth, the following measures were determined: the alveolar bone thickness in two locations; the vertical distance between the buccal alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction; the angle between the tooth’s long axis and the alveolar bone axial inclination in the sagittal plane. Results In the most coronal location of maxillary teeth, the thickness of alveolar bone was lower than 0.6 (SD 0.6) mm in 50% of the teeth, and in the middle of the root the bone thickness was, on average, 0.96 (SD 0.6) mm. For the same maxillary teeth, the vertical distance between the buccal alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction and the angulation measured were, on average, 3.6 (SD 1.2) mm and 12.1º (SD 1.4º), respectively. Conclusions The present study revealed that in most cases the thickness of buccal alveolar bone was less than 1 mm. Consequently, in such cases, immediate dental implant placement operation is not recommended, or should be combined with bone regeneration techniques.","PeriodicalId":230885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125428623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：