View more from Listerine
Switch to Dark theme

References

Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:639-644
Misawa M, Lindhe J, Araujo MG. The alveolar process following single-tooth extraction: a study of maxillary incisor and premolar sites in man. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27
Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:1-21
Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23:313-323
Johnson K. A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction. Aust Dent J. 1969; 14:241-244
Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93:950-958
Moraschini V, Barboza Edos S. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar socket preservation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45:1126-1134
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7
Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111:85-92
Barone A, Aldini NN, Fini M, Giardino R, Calvo Guirado JL, Covani U. Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. J Periodontol. 2008; 79:1370-1377
Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U. Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:1231-1237
Barone A, Toti P, Quaranta A, Alfonsi F, Cucchi A, Negri B Clinical and histological changes after ridge preservation with two xenografts: preliminary results from a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44:204-214
Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L, Cardaropoli G. Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012; 32:421-430
Festa VM, Addabbo F, Laino L, Femiano F, Rullo R. Porcine-derived xenograft combined with a soft cortical membrane versus extraction alone for implant site development: a clinical study in humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15:707-713
Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21:688-698
Jung RE, Philipp A, Annen BM, Signorelli L, Thoma DS, Hammerle CH Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40:90-98
Araujo MG, da Silva JC, de Mendonca AF, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following grafting of fresh extraction sockets in man. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:407-412
Meloni SM, Tallarico M, Lolli FM, Deledda A, Pisano M, Jovanovic SA. Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix. 1-year results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015; 8:39-48
Handelsman M, Celletti R. Alveolar ridge augmentation using membranes. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2004; 16:33-39
Cardaropoli G, Araujo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 30:809-818
Thoma DS, Naenni N, Benic GI, Munoz F, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE. Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement – is there a need to remove the biomaterial?. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44:556-565
Mardas N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, MacBeth N, Petrie A, Donos N. Does ridge preservation following tooth extraction improve implant treatment outcomes: a systematic review: Group 4: Therapeutic concepts & methods. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:180-201

Management of the extraction socket and alveolar ridge preservation

From Volume 46, Issue 2, February 2019 | Pages 151-156

Authors

William Anderson

BSc, BDS, MFDS, MPerio RCS (Ed), FDS (Rest Dent) RCS Ed

Consultant, Restorative Dentistry, University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Trust

Articles by William Anderson

Andrew Pye

Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, Dundee Dental Hospital and School, Park Place, Dundee DD1 4HR, UK

Articles by Andrew Pye

Abstract

Abstract: An understanding of the changes which occur to the alveolar ridge following an extraction are important in the era of dental implants, and these changes can have a huge impact on the simplicity and invasiveness of dental implant treatment. It has been demonstrated that certain techniques and materials, utilized at the time of extraction, can modify the changes in the alveolar ridge, allowing idealized implant placement with minimal surgical interventions. Techniques for and evidence supporting alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) are presented.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Dentists and specialists providing implant treatment, and referring patients for treatment, must be aware of implications of extraction and the resulting ridge volume loss.

Article

Dental practitioners will be aware that, following extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes significant changes. The biological processes and dimensional changes that occur have been well studied. These changes have an impact on the prosthodontic replacement of teeth and this has taken on increased importance with the increasing prevalence of dental implants. The morphology of the remaining alveolar ridge has a significant impact on implant treatment complexity and outcomes. An intact ridge can lead to low risk implant placement with the expectation of excellent aesthetic and functional outcomes, whereas severe atrophy of the ridge is associated with increased risk, particularly where vertical augmentation is required, as well as associated surgical morbidity, and potential for aesthetic compromise. The ITI group have developed an assessment system which includes general, systemic and local factors and their effects on treatment, including the deficient ridge (www.iti.org/SAC-Assessment-Tool). Significant soft and hard tissue augmentation immediately raises the overall treatment level to complex.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here