Premium
The Clinical Effectiveness of Alveolar Ridge Preservation in the Maxillary Anterior Esthetic Zone—A Retrospective Study
Author(s) -
Lee Albert Ming Hsien,
Poon Choy Yoke
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/jerd.12280
Subject(s) - alveolar ridge , medicine , dentistry , implant , ridge , orthodontics , surgery , biology , paleontology
Purpose The primary aim was to investigate whether ridge preservation done at extraction will preserve at least 6 mm of alveolar ridge width in the anterior maxillary zone and obviate the need for secondary bone augmentation during implant insertion. Methods Sixty patients with single implants placed in the anterior maxillary zone were classified in two groups. In the test group, 40 patients underwent ridge preservation at the time of tooth extraction, while the remaining 20 patients in the control group did not. Preimplant CBCT was evaluated to investigate if at least 6 mm of alveolar ridge width existed before implant insertion. The records were studied to investigate if secondary bone augmentation was done during implantation. Results The mean patient age was 48.4 years. In the test group, mean healing time before implant placement was 5.0 ± 3.7 months (2 to 22 months); in the control groups, 13.0 + 12.7 months (1.2 to 38 months). In the test group, 82.5% of the subjects had a preimplant alveolar ridge width measuring at least 6 mm. In comparison, only 35% of the subjects in the control group had a preimplant alveolar ridge width measuring at least 6 mm. The odds of having at least 6 mm preimplant alveolar ridge width was significantly higher than the control group ( p < 0.001). The need for secondary augmentation in the esthetic zone was less in the test group, the difference was not significant ( p = 0.218). Within the test group, subjects received either xenografts or allografts as the ridge preservation material. There was no significant difference in the alveolar ridge width between these two materials ( p = 1) Conclusion Ridge preservation was effective in providing a sufficient ridge width in the anterior maxilla at the time of implantation and reduced the need for further bone augmentation. Clinical Significance The results of this study give the clinician insight into whether ridge preservation is required during extraction in the anterior maxilla in preparation for an implant restoration. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:137–145, 2017)