ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare success rates between the sub-periosteal prepared (SPP) muco-periosteal flap and the epi-periosteal prepared (EPP) mucosa flap and the feasibility of alveoplasty after surgical tooth extractions in patients undergoing/after antiresorptive treatment. SUBJECTS: Patients with an indication for preventive tooth extraction undergoing/after antiresorptive treatment were enrolled over a 24-month period in a parallel-group randomized clinical pilot trial and randomly assigned for primary wound closure to either the SPP or the EPP group. The primary outcome was treatment failure 8 weeks after surgery. To assess the feasibility of alveoplasty, necrotic bone changes at the time point of tooth extraction were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized to the SSP (n = 82) or the EPP (n = 78) group. One hundred and fifty-seven patients met the primary endpoint 8 weeks after surgery with five treatment failures for the SPP group (6.3%) and 18 (23.4%) for the EPP group (p = .004). A significant relationship (p < .0001) was observed between symptomatic teeth and non-vital bone found in 54.8% of all biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: The strong superiority of the muco-periosteal flap as primary wound closure revealed the feasibility and effectiveness of the study. The large number of necrotic biopsies emphasizes the importance of alveoplasty as a preventive measure.
