scholarly journals A randomized, controlled, multicentre clinical trial of post‐extraction alveolar ridge preservation

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1188-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Todd Scheyer ◽  
Rick Heard ◽  
Jim Janakievski ◽  
George Mandelaris ◽  
Marc L. Nevins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Multicentre Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Avila-Ortiz ◽  
M. Gubler ◽  
M. Romero-Bustillos ◽  
C.L. Nicholas ◽  
M.B. Zimmerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of facilitating tooth replacement therapy. This randomized controlled trial was primarily aimed at testing the efficacy of ARP as compared with unassisted socket healing. A secondary objective was to evaluate the effect that local phenotypic factors play in the volumetric reduction of the alveolar bone. A total of 53 subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomized into either the control group, which involved only tooth extraction (EXT n = 27), or the experimental group, which received ARP using a combination of socket grafting with a particulate bone allograft and socket sealing with a nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) following tooth extraction (ARP n = 26). A set of clinical, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk healing period. All linear bone assessments (horizontal, midbuccal, and midlingual reduction) revealed that ARP is superior to EXT. Likewise, volumetric bone resorption was significantly higher in the control group (mean ± SD: EXT = −15.83% ± 4.48%, ARP = −8.36% ± 3.81%, P < 0.0001). Linear regression analyses revealed that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of alveolar bone resorption in both groups. Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups. Additional bone augmentation to facilitate implant placement in a prosthetically acceptable position was deemed necessary in 48.1% of the EXT sites and only 11.5% of the ARP sites ( P < 0.004). Assessment of perceived postoperative discomfort at each follow-up visit revealed a progressive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups. Although some extent of alveolar ridge remodeling occurred in both groups, ARP therapy was superior to EXT as it was more efficacious in the maintenance of alveolar bone and reduced the estimated need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01794806).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document