ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following extraction of non-molar teeth in comparison to early implant placement (EIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, patient-reported outcomes, and implant failure rate. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared ARP to EIP. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: A total of 106 studies were identified, of which five studies with 198 non-molar extraction sockets in 198 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in midfacial mucosal margin (mean difference (MD) -0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; p = .03) and ridge width (MD -1.70; 95% CI -3.19 to -0.20; p = .03) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP was also associated with less need for additional augmentation at implant placement, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of non-molar teeth has short-term positive effects on soft tissue contour, mucosal margin and thickness, and alveolar ridge width and height. It can also simplify future implant treatment by minimizing the need for additional augmentation.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The objective of this research was to measure the labial bone thickness (LBT) in relation to the 6 anterior maxillary teeth at different levels along the long axis and the distance between cementoenamel junction and bone crest (CEJ-BC) based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans retrieved from patients of Arab ethnicity and identify any association with patients' characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 CBCT scans were evaluated by one calibrated examiner. The thickness of the labial bone was measured perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth at 1, 3, and 5 mm from the alveolar crest (LBT-1, LBT-3, and LBT-5, respectively) and CEJ-BC using a medical imaging viewer. RESULTS: CBCT scans of 58 female patients and 42 male patients with a mean age of 39.7 ± 9.5 years were included. A high variation of CEJ-BC was observed (range, 0.55-3.90 mm). Statistically significant higher CEJ-BC values were associated with men and increased age (>50 years). The overall means of LBT-1 were 0.76 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.26, and 0.83 ± 0.37 mm; LBT-3: 0.92 ± 0.36, 1.05 ± 0.46, and 1.03 ± 0.48 mm; LBT-5: 1.17 ± 0.52, 0.80 ± 0.45, and 0.81 ± 0.40 mm for central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively. The LBT was <1 mm in 74.2% of all maxillary anterior teeth, with central incisors showing the highest predilection (85% with LBT <1 mm). No significant association between LBT and patient characteristics was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The CEJ-BC distance is greater in men and increases with age, particularly in those aged 50 years and older. The LBT in the 6 maxillary anterior teeth is predominantly thin (<1 mm) and has no correlation to age or sex. An increased LBT was observed at a 3-mm level when compared with LBT-1 and LBT-5. Such variability should be taken into consideration when planning for implant placement.
Subject(s)
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , Incisor , Male , Humans , Female , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/methods , Incisor/diagnostic imaging , Alveolar Process/diagnostic imaging , Tooth Cervix , Maxilla/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) on the rates of peri-implant diseases and peri-implant marginal bone loss. ?Data sources: The guidelines of PRISMA statement were followed in searching for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and retrospective studies in several electronic databases and reference lists. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tools for nonrandomized studies were used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analyzed using statistical software. ?A total of 159 studies were identified. Five trials, with 1,570 implants in 617 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Overall meta-analysis showed significantly reduced rates of peri-implantitis with SPIT compared with non-SPIT at implant and patient levels. Peri-implant mucositis was significantly reduced with SPIT at implant level only. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was significantly reduced in patients with SPIT compared to those who did not attend SPIT.
Conclusion: SPIT can significantly reduce the rate of peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss. The evidence on the role of SPIT in reducing the rate of peri-implant mucositis, on the other hand, remains limited. Further well-designed studies on the impact of SPIT on implant treatment outcome are still needed. Clinical significance: There is a need to adopt a SPIT regimen for patients receiving implant therapy to reduce the rate of peri-implant diseases and marginal bone loss. This need should be stipulated in the patient information and consent forms prior to implant therapy. (Quintessence Int 2021;52:122-131; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a45428)
