臼齿牙槽嵴保存是否必要?系统评价。

IF 1.7
Manali Vora, Lan-Lin Chiou, Sejal Thacker
{"title":"臼齿牙槽嵴保存是否必要?系统评价。","authors":"Manali Vora, Lan-Lin Chiou, Sejal Thacker","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) aims to minimize alveolar bone resorption after extraction. The benefit of ARP in reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures to facilitate implant placement has been demonstrated, particularly in single-rooted tooth sites. However, its efficacy in molar sites remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to investigate if ARP in molar sites, compared to spontaneous healing (SH), adequately preserves ridge dimensions to facilitate successful implant placement while reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures such as guided bone regeneration (GBR) or sinus floor augmentation (SFA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using four electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies involving adult patients undergoing molar tooth/teeth extraction planned for implant placement and with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. Data on horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes, need for GBR or SFA for implant placement and other implant-related outcomes were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies were included: eight RCTs, two CCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective cohort study. 571 sites were analyzed, with the number of sites in individual studies ranging from 20 to 80. In periodontally sound sockets, the ridge width reduction was less in the ARP groups (range: -1.02 ± 0.88 mm to -2.73 ± 1.68 mm) compared to SH groups (range: -2.36 ± 0.91 mm to -4.44 ± 3.71 mm). A similar trend was noted for ridge height reduction, irrespective of the condition of extraction socket. Moreover, ARP reduced the need for advanced grafting procedures (20.8% for ARP groups vs 47.7% for SH groups), including GBR, SFA and SFA via lateral window approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limits of this review, it can be concluded that ARP in molar sites can limit alveolar bone resorption post-extraction and reduce the need for additional bone augmentation procedures as well as the likelihood of requiring SFA via the lateral window approach in maxillary posterior sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Alveolar Ridge Preservation Necessary in Molar Sites? A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Manali Vora, Lan-Lin Chiou, Sejal Thacker\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.11561\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) aims to minimize alveolar bone resorption after extraction. The benefit of ARP in reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures to facilitate implant placement has been demonstrated, particularly in single-rooted tooth sites. However, its efficacy in molar sites remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to investigate if ARP in molar sites, compared to spontaneous healing (SH), adequately preserves ridge dimensions to facilitate successful implant placement while reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures such as guided bone regeneration (GBR) or sinus floor augmentation (SFA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using four electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies involving adult patients undergoing molar tooth/teeth extraction planned for implant placement and with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. Data on horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes, need for GBR or SFA for implant placement and other implant-related outcomes were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 studies were included: eight RCTs, two CCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective cohort study. 571 sites were analyzed, with the number of sites in individual studies ranging from 20 to 80. In periodontally sound sockets, the ridge width reduction was less in the ARP groups (range: -1.02 ± 0.88 mm to -2.73 ± 1.68 mm) compared to SH groups (range: -2.36 ± 0.91 mm to -4.44 ± 3.71 mm). A similar trend was noted for ridge height reduction, irrespective of the condition of extraction socket. Moreover, ARP reduced the need for advanced grafting procedures (20.8% for ARP groups vs 47.7% for SH groups), including GBR, SFA and SFA via lateral window approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limits of this review, it can be concluded that ARP in molar sites can limit alveolar bone resorption post-extraction and reduce the need for additional bone augmentation procedures as well as the likelihood of requiring SFA via the lateral window approach in maxillary posterior sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11561\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:牙槽嵴保存(ARP)旨在减少拔牙后牙槽骨吸收。ARP在减少需要额外的骨增强手术以促进种植体放置方面的好处已被证明,特别是在单根牙齿部位。然而,其在磨牙部位的功效尚不清楚。本系统综述旨在研究与自发愈合(SH)相比,磨牙部位的ARP是否能充分保留牙脊尺寸,以促进种植体的成功放置,同时减少对额外骨增强手术(如引导骨再生(GBR)或窦底增强(SFA))的需求。材料和方法:利用四个电子数据库进行文献检索。随机对照试验(RCTs)、对照临床试验(CCTs)和队列研究纳入了接受臼齿/拔牙计划种植的成年患者,随访时间至少为3个月。收集水平和垂直脊尺寸变化、种植体放置时需要GBR或SFA以及其他种植体相关结果的数据。结果:共纳入14项研究:8项随机对照试验、2项随机对照试验、3项前瞻性队列研究和1项回顾性队列研究。571个地点被分析,个别研究的地点数量从20到80不等。在牙周健康牙槽中,ARP组牙槽嵴宽度减小幅度(-1.02±0.88 mm ~ -2.73±1.68 mm)小于SH组(-2.36±0.91 mm ~ -4.44±3.71 mm)。与拔牙槽的情况无关,牙脊高度也有类似的下降趋势。此外,ARP减少了对高级移植手术的需求(ARP组为20.8%,SH组为47.7%),包括GBR, SFA和SFA通过侧窗入路。结论:在本综述的范围内,可以得出结论,磨牙部位的ARP可以限制拔牙后的牙槽骨吸收,减少对额外骨增强手术的需求,以及通过上颌后侧窗入路需要SFA的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Alveolar Ridge Preservation Necessary in Molar Sites? A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) aims to minimize alveolar bone resorption after extraction. The benefit of ARP in reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures to facilitate implant placement has been demonstrated, particularly in single-rooted tooth sites. However, its efficacy in molar sites remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to investigate if ARP in molar sites, compared to spontaneous healing (SH), adequately preserves ridge dimensions to facilitate successful implant placement while reducing the need for additional bone augmentation procedures such as guided bone regeneration (GBR) or sinus floor augmentation (SFA).

Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted using four electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies involving adult patients undergoing molar tooth/teeth extraction planned for implant placement and with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. Data on horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes, need for GBR or SFA for implant placement and other implant-related outcomes were collected.

Results: A total of 14 studies were included: eight RCTs, two CCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective cohort study. 571 sites were analyzed, with the number of sites in individual studies ranging from 20 to 80. In periodontally sound sockets, the ridge width reduction was less in the ARP groups (range: -1.02 ± 0.88 mm to -2.73 ± 1.68 mm) compared to SH groups (range: -2.36 ± 0.91 mm to -4.44 ± 3.71 mm). A similar trend was noted for ridge height reduction, irrespective of the condition of extraction socket. Moreover, ARP reduced the need for advanced grafting procedures (20.8% for ARP groups vs 47.7% for SH groups), including GBR, SFA and SFA via lateral window approach.

Conclusions: Within the limits of this review, it can be concluded that ARP in molar sites can limit alveolar bone resorption post-extraction and reduce the need for additional bone augmentation procedures as well as the likelihood of requiring SFA via the lateral window approach in maxillary posterior sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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