Volumetric changes in alveolar ridge preservation with a compromised buccal wall: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Susana García-González ^[2] ; Andrea Galve-Huertas ^[3] ; Samir Aboul-Hosn Centenero ^[4] ; Santiago Mareque-Bueno ^[1] ; Marta Satorres-Nieto ^[5] ; Federico Hernández-Alfaro ^[6]
  1. [1] Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Santiago de Compostela, España

     
  2. [2] DDS, MSc, PhD. Assistant Professor of the International Master in Oral Surgery (IMOS). International University of Catalonia
  3. [3] DDS. Resident of the International Master in Oral Surgery (IMOS). International University of Catalonia
  4. [4] MD, PhD, EBOMFS. Co-director of the International Master in Oral Surgery (IMOS). International University of Catalonia
  5. [5] DDS, MS, PhD. Associate Professor, International Master’s Degree in Oral Surgery (IMOS). International University of Catalonia
  6. [6] MD, DDS, PhD, EBOMFS. Professor and Chairman of the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery. International University of Catalonia

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa, ISSN-e 1698-6946, Vol. 25, Nº. 5 (September), 2020
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Many studies have addressed socket preservation, though fewer publications considering buccal wall loss can be found, since the literature typically considers sockets with four walls. A systematic review was made on the influence of type II buccal bone defects, according to Elian’s Classification, in socket grafting materials upon volumetric changes in width and height.

    An electronic and manual literature search was conducted in accordance to PRISMA statement. The search strategy was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) describing post-extraction sockets with loss of buccal wall in which alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) was carried out in the test group and spontaneous healing of the socket (SH) was considered in the control group.

    The search strategy yielded 7 studies. The meta-analysis showed an additional bone loss of 2.37 mm in width (p > 0.001) and of 1.10 mm in height (p > 0.001) in the absence of ARP. The reconstruction of the vestibular wall was not evaluated in any study. The results also showed moderate to great heterogeneity among the included studies in terms of the changes in width and height.

    Despite the heterogeneity of the included studies, the results indicate a benefit of ARP versus SH. Further studies are needed to determine the volumetric changes that occur when performing ARP in the presence of a buccal bone wall defect.