Extraction socket healing in humans after ridge preservation techniques: comparison between flapless and flapped procedures in a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND The preservation of hard and soft tissue volume, partially lost after tooth removal, can potentially reduce the need for the more demanding augmentation procedures used in implant-supported rehabilitation. The objective of this research study is to investigate the effect of filling with xenogeneic material the postextractive sockets of two surgical procedures (flapless versus flapped). METHODS In this prospective randomized clinical survey, two types of socket preservation were performed on two groups of patients: the control, treated via full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap, and the test, via a flapless procedure. Anatomic measurements and related outcome variables at the third month were analyzed using multiway analysis of variance. Multiple comparison tests, using Tukey honestly significant difference test, and appropriate pairwise comparison tests for independent samples were carried out. RESULTS Sixty-four patients were treated, 32 for each of the two socket preservation procedures. Statistically significant differences were registered for the output variables -- changes in width of keratinized gingiva, changes in bucco-lingual width, and vertical bone changes at four sites -- between the two socket preservation techniques, with P values of <0.001, <0.001, and 0.0105, respectively. CONCLUSIONS A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap gave significantly more negative results than that of the less-demanding flapless procedure, with an increased width resorption of the postextraction site. Moreover, the increased value of the keratinized gingival width attested to the positive outcome of a flapless procedure in terms of soft tissue preservation and improvement. On the other hand, the flapped technique seemed to show less vertical bone resorption on the buccal aspect than the flapless technique.

[1]  R. Palmer,et al.  Bone healing after tooth extraction with or without an intervention: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. , 2014, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[2]  N. Donos,et al.  Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review , 2013, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[3]  S. Santini,et al.  Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  A. Barone,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a ridge augmentation procedure for the severely resorbed alveolar socket: multicenter randomized controlled trial, preliminary results. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[5]  L. Rasmusson,et al.  A clinical and histological case series study on calcium sulfate for maxillary sinus floor augmentation and delayed placement of dental implants. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[6]  M. Wong,et al.  A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Immediate implant placement in molar regions: risk factors for early failure. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  M. Sanz,et al.  Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  C. Hämmerle,et al.  Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  J. Pérez,et al.  Ridge alterations following flapless immediate implant placement with or without immediate loading. Part II: a histometric study in the Beagle dog. , 2011, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[11]  A. Zini,et al.  Analysis of the pattern of the alveolar ridge remodelling following single tooth extraction. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  D. E. Slot,et al.  Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  L. Sbordone,et al.  Apical and marginal bone alterations around implants in maxillary sinus augmentation grafted with autogenous bone or bovine bone material and simultaneous or delayed dental implant positioning. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Maxillary sinus augmentation in humans using cortical porcine bone: a histological and histomorphometrical evaluation after 4 and 6 months. , 2011, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, Trials.

[16]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  L. Sennerby,et al.  Clinical histology of microimplants placed in two different biomaterials. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Ridge alterations following tooth extraction with and without flap elevation: an experimental study in the dog. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  G. Cardaropoli,et al.  Preservation of the postextraction alveolar ridge: a clinical and histologic study. , 2008, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[20]  Otto Zuhr,et al.  Tissue alterations after tooth extraction with and without surgical trauma: a volumetric study in the beagle dog. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[21]  Daniel Rothamel,et al.  [Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog]. , 2007, Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie : MKG.

[22]  M. Simion,et al.  Management of the exposure of e-PTFE membranes in guided bone regeneration. , 2007, Practical procedures & aesthetic dentistry : PPAD.

[23]  Yong-Geun Choi,et al.  Comparison of dental implant systems: quality of clinical evidence and prediction of 5-year survival. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[24]  H. Greenwell,et al.  Ridge preservation with freeze-dried bone allograft and a collagen membrane compared to extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical and histologic study in humans. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[25]  Z. Artzi,et al.  Healing of dehiscence defects at delayed-immediate implant sites primarily closed by a rotated palatal flap following extraction. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[26]  P. Klokkevold,et al.  A bone regenerative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following tooth extraction. Report of 10 cases. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[27]  H. Steveling,et al.  Ridge preservation following tooth extraction: a comparison between atraumatic extraction and socket seal surgery. , 2010, Quintessence international.

[28]  D. Buser,et al.  Ridge preservation techniques for implant therapy. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[29]  F. Romano,et al.  Clinical and histologic healing of human extraction sockets filled with calcium sulfate. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[30]  A. Barone,et al.  Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.