J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2022 Feb;52(1):3-27. 10.5051/jpis.2007100355.

Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of dimensional hard tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation techniques of different bone substitutes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Pickert FN
• Spalthoff S
• Gellrich NC
• Blaya Tárraga JA

• KMID: 2557792
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2007100355

Abstract

Purpose
This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of different graft materials used in alveolar ridge preservation on dimensional hard tissue changes of the alveolar ridge, assessed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
Methods
A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a manual search were conducted from November 2019 until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were included if they assessed at least 1 variable related to vertical or horizontal hard tissue changes measured using CBCT scans. After a qualitative analysis of the included studies, subgroups were formed according to the graft material used, and a quantitative analysis was performed for 5 outcome variables: changes in vertical alveolar bone height at 2 points (midbuccal and midpalatal/midlingual) and changes in horizontal (buccolingual) alveolar bone width at 3 different levels from the initial crest height (1, 3, and 5 mm).
Results
The search resulted in 1,582 studies, and after an independent 3-stage screening, 16 studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis. The metaanalysis showed a significantly (P<0.05) lower reduction of alveolar ridge dimensions for the xenogenic subgroup than in the allogenic subgroup, both vertically at the midbuccal aspect (weighted mean difference [WMD]=−0.20; standard error [SE]=0.26 vs. WMD=−0.90; SE=0.22) as well as horizontally at 1 mm (WMD=−1.32; SE=0.07 vs. WMD=−2.99; SE=0.96) and 3 mm (WMD=−0.78; SE=0.11 vs. WMD=−1.63; SE=0.40) from the initial crest height. No statistical analysis could be performed for the autogenic subgroup because it was not reported in sufficient numbers.
Conclusions
Less vertical and horizontal bone reduction was observed when xenogenic graft materials were used than when allogenic graft materials were used; however, the loss of alveolar ridge dimensions could not be completely prevented by any graft material.

Keyword

Alveolar bone loss; Bone substitutes; Cone-beam computed tomography; Dental implants; Guided tissue regeneration; Tooth socket