Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 10 (3), e5
eCollection

Extraction Socket Preservation With or Without Membranes, Soft Tissue Influence on Post Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review

Affiliations
Review

Extraction Socket Preservation With or Without Membranes, Soft Tissue Influence on Post Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review

Ricardo Faria-Almeida et al. J Oral Maxillofac Res.

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.

Keywords: alveolar bone loss; bone remodeling; systematic review; tooth socket.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Literature search and procedure for the choice of the papers.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 PubMed Central articles

References

    1. Chapple IL, Wilson NH. Manifesto for a paradigm shift: periodontal health for a better life. Br Dent J. 2014 Feb;216(4): 159-62. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ali Z, Baker SR, Shahrbaf S, Martin N, Vettore MV. Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):59-68.e3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wolleb K, Sailer I, Thoma A, Menghini G, Hammerle CH. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of patients receiving both tooth- and implant-supported prosthodontic treatment after 5 years of function. Int J Prosthodont. 2012 May-Jun;25(3):252-9. - PubMed
    1. Chappuis V, Engel O, Reyes M, Shahim K, Nolte LP, Buser D. Ridge alterations post-extraction in the esthetic zone: a 3D analysis with CBCT. J Dent Res. 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):195S-201S. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chappuis V, Engel O, Shahim K, Reyes M, Katsaros C, Buser D. Soft Tissue Alterations in Esthetic Postextraction Sites: A 3-Dimensional Analysis. J Dent Res. 2015 Sep;94(9 Suppl):187S-93S. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback