Socket Preservation Dr Laura Fee Looks at the Various Techniques and Materials Available for the Purposes of Socket Preservation Post Extraction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Clinical Socket preservation Dr Laura Fee looks at the various techniques and materials available for the purposes of socket preservation post extraction ocket preservation • Future fixed partial denture pontic based on solid documentation in is a procedure that site is planned. the literature. There is currently not reduces bone and enough data available to indicate soft tissue loss after Post-extraction healing superiority of one method or mate- tooth extraction. It The alveolar process resorbs after rial over another 9. The complete Sis performed immediately after tooth extraction, significantly regeneration of dehiscence and tooth extraction. It has been found impacting oral rehabilitation with fenestration-type defects cannot be that ridge preservation procedures dental implants and other types of predictably accomplished regard- following tooth extraction result in prosthesis. Following tooth extrac- less of which grafting protocol is greater orofacial dimension of bone tion, the blood clot forms and implemented ı. when compared with cases where defensive cells such as polymorpho- no ridge preservation procedures nucleocytes migrate into the socket • Autograft: Bone from same are completed ı. to help fight infection. Bundle bone individual which predict - Socket preservation is indicated lines the socket with remnants of ably accelerates new bone as tooth extraction can have a the periodontal ligament. Coagulate formation. Disadvantage is unpre- significant impact on the facial necrosis occurs and a provisional dictable resorption and donor bone height 2. After eight weeks of matrix is formed with newly formed site morbidity and resorptive healing there is, on average, 20 per blood vessels along with imma- tendency changes with harvesting cent horizontal resorption and a 50 ture collagen fibres. By day seven technique ı0. per cent reduction of vertical bone the bundle bone begins to break • Allograft: Bone from same wall height 3. down and osteoclastic activity species but another individual. Immediate implant placement creates gaps within this bone. New These include free frozen does not counteract alveolar ridge blood vessels access the socket and bone, freeze-dried bone allo- modelling after tooth extraction.iv newly woven bone forms around graft, demineralised freeze-dried Socket preservation compensates angiogenesis. At day seven to ı4 the bone allograft and deproteinised for the biologic resorption of the bundle bone lining is removed 6. bone allograft. This is an osteo- facial bone wall. It aids implant By day ı4 the bone is more mature. conductive material. Disease placement and can reduce the need The removal of bundle bone has transmission has been reported for later bone augmentation. By significant implications for implant in the past ıı. reducing marginal bone loss on stability 2. Bundle bone resorption • Xenograft: Material of biologic adjacent teeth and accelerating bone causes a loss of height and width origin but another species such as formation it can increase implant of buccal bone. Over ı2 months it animal, corals or calcifying algae. survival and success 3. has been shown that 50 per cent of No reports of disease transmis- horizontal width of the ridge disap- sion. Surface characteristics of Socket preservation should be pears. Within the first three months xenografts are dependent on considered when: 5 two-thirds of that total reduction has preparation method. This is an • Implant placement needs to be already taken place 7. osteoconductive material as all delayed for patient or site-related proteins are removed so there is reasons Biomaterials for socket grafting 8 no osteoinductive potential ı2. • In situations where implant place- The choice of bone grafting material • Alloplast: Material from synthetic ment for some reason needs to be should assure the long-term stability origin such as calcium phosphates, postponed for more than months of the bone volume and should be glass ceramics and polymers. The 26 Ireland’s Dental magazine Clinical Table 1. Alveolar ridge preservation 17 HORIZONTAL VERTICAL Socket preservation 1.31 0.91 Unassisted socket healing 1.54 1.12 Fig 1 Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption biggest challenge for alloplastic intact socket walls, thick facial caption caption caption caption caption caption materials has been reproducing bone wall, thick gingival biotype, the surface characteristics of no acute infection and good biologically derived materials. primary stability The degradation, however, may be • Early implant placement usually modified according to our clinical at six to eight weeks in the indications by changing the aesthetic zone material’s chemical structure ı2. • Conventional implant placement at three months post-extraction Dentists should strive to use a • Socket preservation – in cases well-documented material with a where implant placement needs low substitute rate which results to be delayed due to patient or site in less horizontal and vertical bone related factors. This is beneficial Fig 2 resorption. The use of a barrier in situations where implant place- Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption membrane is indicated whenever ment needs to be postponed for caption caption caption caption caption caption a particulate material is used as it more than six months. encourages increased bone fill ı. Resorbable collagen membranes Is it evidence-based? (Table ı) such as Jason Membrane demon- Socket preservation does not strate good cell occlusiveness, good increase implant survival or success. handling properties and have a low It has been shown that implant place- susceptibility to complications ı3. ment is always possible whether the socket has been preserved or Socket sealing ı4 not 5. Further bone augmentation • Primary closure after elevating has been shown to be needed in and mobilising a full-thickness 9.9 per cent of socket preserved Fig 3 mucoperiosteal flap cases compared with 20.8 per cent Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption • Free gingival graft – autogenous unassisted socket healing cases ı4. caption caption caption caption caption caption • Dermal allografts According to the study completed • Collagen matrix xenografts. by Mardas socket preservation reduces the marginal bone loss by Socket sealing has shown less hori- 0.039mm compared with unassisted zontal and vertical bone resorption socket healing. Autograft results in when used with Bio-Oss collagen ı5. faster bone healing compared with The ideal healing time before any other bone substitute mate- implant placement is reported as rial such as Bio-Oss ı8. Araujo et al being six to nine months to allow for showed significant preservation of adequate healing of bone substitutes the facial bone volume with Bio-Oss materials ı6. Collagen at six months ı9. However, socket preservation Fig 4 Treatment alternatives 5 Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption • Immediate implant placement if Continued » caption caption caption caption caption caption Ireland’s Dental magazine 27 Clinical Continued » does not accelerate bone formation. A CBCT clinical study examining REFERENCE Periodontol 2006;77:1555-1563 12. Jensen SS, Broggini N, Hjorting- 28 patients with single tooth flap- Hansen E, Schenk R, Buser D. Bone less extractions compared DBBM/ 1. Chen ST. Clinical and Esthetic healing and graft resorption of autograft, collagen grafts versus a blood clot in Outcomes of Implants Placed in anorganic bovine bone and β - ticalcium sockets alone. It was shown that by Postextraction Sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac phosphate. A histologic and histomor- Implants 2009; 24(Suppl):186-217 phometric study in the mandibles of placing a graft into a socket that the 2. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional minipigs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. amount of horizontal resorption can ridge alterations following tooth extrac- 2006; 17(3):237-243 be reduced but it will have no impact tion. An experimental study in the dog. J 13. Von Arx T et al. Membrane Durabil- Clin Periodontol 2005 Feb; 32(2): 212-8 lity and Tissue Response of Different on the vertical change of the buccal 3. Chappuis V, Engel O, Reyes M, Shahim Bioresorbable Barrier Membranes: A bone wall. Bundle bone on the facial K, Nolte LP, Buser D.Ridge alterations Histologic Stucy in the Rabbit Calvarium. wall resorbs irrespective of ridge post-extraction in the esthetic zone: a 3D Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20:843-853 maintenance procedures which can analysis with CBCT. J Dent Res 2013 Dec; 92(12 Suppl):195S-201S 14. Thalmair T, Hinze M, Bolz W et al. The have implications in the aesthetic 4. Clementini M, Tiravia L, De Risi V, De healing of free gingival autografts for zone. This necessitates a second Sanctis M. Dimensional Changes after socket-sea; surgery: a case report. Eur J immediate implant placement with Esthet Dent 2010; 5(4): 358-368 bone grafting procedure at the time 15. Jung RE, Hurzeler MB, Thoma DS, 20. or without simultaneous regenerative of implant placement procedures: A systematic review and Khraisat A. Local tolerance and efficiency meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol June of two prototype collagen matrices to Socket preservation in 2015 42(7) 599-702 increase the width of keratinized tissue. 5. Martin WC, Morton D. The Influence Journal of Clinical Periodotology 2011; growing individuals 2ı of Restorative Procedures on Esthetic 38(2):173-179 There is limited evidence concerning Outcomes in Implant Dentistry: A 16. Mardas N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, socket preservation in growing indi- Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac MacBeth N, Petrie A, Donos N. Does viduals. Sandor completed socket Implants 2014; 29(Suppl):142-154 ridge preservation following tooth 6. Cardoropoli G, Araujo M, Lindhe J. extraction improve implant treatment preservation in 2ı patients with a Dynamics of bone tissue formation in outcomes: a systematic review: Group 4: mean age of ı3 years old. The results tooth extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol Therapeutic concepts and methods. Clin of this study showed that 83 per Sept 2003; 30(9): 809-818 Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep; 26 Suppl 7. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, 11:180-201 cent of the post-traumatic cases Karring T.