Long-term outcomes of post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation and alveolar ridge reconstruction followed by delayed implant placement: A systematic review.

IF 17.5 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
G Avila-Ortiz,E Couso-Queiruga,S Stuhr,L Chambrone
{"title":"Long-term outcomes of post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation and alveolar ridge reconstruction followed by delayed implant placement: A systematic review.","authors":"G Avila-Ortiz,E Couso-Queiruga,S Stuhr,L Chambrone","doi":"10.1111/prd.12642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This systematic review analyzed the long-term outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and alveolar ridge reconstruction (ARR) before delayed implant placement. Eight studies were included (one non-randomized clinical trial, one prospective case series, four retrospective comparative studies, and two retrospective case series). Risk of bias assessment, using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, revealed one high-quality study, four medium-quality studies, and three with low methodological quality. In total, 333 patients underwent ARP or ARR, with the most common approach involving xenogeneic bone grafting and socket sealing with a collagen membrane, matrix, or dressing. Follow-up ranged from 5 to 10 years. Due to methodological heterogeneity and limited data, quantitative analysis was not feasible. The implant survival rate was the most frequently reported outcome, followed by peri-implant marginal bone level changes and peri-implant disease incidence. Despite limited evidence, ARP and ARR appear to support favorable long-term outcomes, particularly in implant survival and bone stability. Further well-designed, large-scale studies comparing different ARP and ARR modalities with other therapies are needed to guide clinical decision-making.","PeriodicalId":19736,"journal":{"name":"Periodontology 2000","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":17.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Periodontology 2000","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12642","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review analyzed the long-term outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and alveolar ridge reconstruction (ARR) before delayed implant placement. Eight studies were included (one non-randomized clinical trial, one prospective case series, four retrospective comparative studies, and two retrospective case series). Risk of bias assessment, using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, revealed one high-quality study, four medium-quality studies, and three with low methodological quality. In total, 333 patients underwent ARP or ARR, with the most common approach involving xenogeneic bone grafting and socket sealing with a collagen membrane, matrix, or dressing. Follow-up ranged from 5 to 10 years. Due to methodological heterogeneity and limited data, quantitative analysis was not feasible. The implant survival rate was the most frequently reported outcome, followed by peri-implant marginal bone level changes and peri-implant disease incidence. Despite limited evidence, ARP and ARR appear to support favorable long-term outcomes, particularly in implant survival and bone stability. Further well-designed, large-scale studies comparing different ARP and ARR modalities with other therapies are needed to guide clinical decision-making.
拔牙后牙槽嵴保存和牙槽嵴重建后延迟种植体放置的长期结果:一项系统综述。
本系统综述分析了延迟种植体放置前的牙槽嵴保存(ARP)和牙槽嵴重建(ARR)的长期结果。纳入8项研究(1项非随机临床试验、1项前瞻性病例系列、4项回顾性比较研究和2项回顾性病例系列)。偏倚风险评估采用改良的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表,结果显示1项高质量研究,4项中等质量研究,3项方法学质量较低。总共有333例患者接受了ARP或ARR,最常见的方法包括异种骨移植和用胶原膜、基质或敷料密封窝。随访时间为5至10年。由于方法的异质性和有限的数据,定量分析是不可行的。种植体存活率是最常见的报道结果,其次是种植体周围边缘骨水平变化和种植体周围疾病发生率。尽管证据有限,但ARP和ARR似乎支持有利的长期结果,特别是在种植体存活和骨稳定性方面。需要进一步精心设计的、大规模的研究来比较不同的ARP和ARR方式与其他治疗方法,以指导临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Periodontology 2000
Periodontology 2000 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
34.10
自引率
2.20%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Periodontology 2000 is a series of monographs designed for periodontists and general practitioners interested in periodontics. The editorial board selects significant topics and distinguished scientists and clinicians for each monograph. Serving as a valuable supplement to existing periodontal journals, three monographs are published annually, contributing specialized insights to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信