YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; xxx: xxx–xxx http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com

Clinical Paper Dental Implants

Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial

C ¸ .Karaca1, N. Er1, A. Gu¨ls¸ahı2, O. T. Ko¨seog˘lu1 1

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey; 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Bas¸kent University, Ankara, Turkey

C¸. KaracaN. Er, A. Gu¨ls¸ahı, O.T. Ko¨seog˘lu: Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; xxx: xxx–xxx. # 2015 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional changes in maxillary extraction sockets that have healed spontaneously and those treated with free gingival grafts. Ten subjects with at least two maxillary anterior teeth scheduled for extraction were selected for this study. Two maxillary teeth were allocated randomly to either the test group or the control group. In the test group, the extraction socket was covered with a free gingival graft harvested from the palate, while in the control group the sockets healed spontaneously. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken on the day of extraction and at 3 months postoperative. Soft tissue healing of the extraction sockets was assessed visually by clinical inspection. Hard tissue measurements were obtained from the CBCT scans. After 3 months of healing, the control sockets had lost height in the buccal and lingual crestal bones ( 1.03 and 0.56 mm, respectively); however, the height in the buccal and lingual crestal bones was preserved at the test sites (+0.06 and +0.25 mm, respectively). This difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). In contrast, both the control and test groups lost width in the buccal and lingual crestal bones; the difference between the control and test groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The authors propose that covering the orifice of the extraction socket with a free gingival graft can result in preservation of the alveolar bone height.

Alveolar ridge resorption is a complicated process that includes structural, functional, and physiological components. Periodontal disease, peri-apical pathologies, 0901-5027/000001+07

and mechanical trauma cause loss of the bone surrounding the teeth. Age, gender, systemic conditions, facial morphology, traumatic dental extractions,

Key words: Extraction socket healing; Alveolar ridge dimension; Socket preservation; Alveolar ridge preservation; Free gingival graft; Punch technique; Cone beam computed tomography. Accepted for publication 21 January 2015

and functional stress on the extraction wound are also predisposing factors that affect alveolar bone loss following tooth extraction.1

# 2015 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

2

Karaca et al.

The rate of alveolar ridge resorption following tooth removal is rapid in the first 6 months2,3 and continues at a mean 0.5–1% a year for life.4 Lekovic et al.5 emphasized that 40% of alveolar bone height and 60% of alveolar bone width are lost within the first 6 months after tooth extraction. Schropp et al.6 reported that approximately 50% of the original alveolar bone width is reduced within the first 12 months after tooth extraction, and twothirds of this resorption occurs in the first 3 months. This resorption can significantly affect the position, angulation, and prognosis of a dental implant, as well as the hard and soft tissue aesthetics. Alveolar ridge preservation techniques have recently been applied to eliminate or decrease bone loss after tooth extraction. Several studies have proposed various ridge preservation techniques, including the placement of mineralized or non-mineralized graft materials, the use of membranes or soft tissue grafts to cover the extraction socket entrance, immediate implant placement, buccal overbuilding, and tissue engineering techniques.7 Demineralized bovine bone material has frequently been utilized as a graft material to preserve the alveolar ridge width and height. Although this has been shown to be effective for protecting bone volume, graft material residue has been observed in the socket even after 7–9 months.8,9 In a recent study by Lindhe et al., the authors emphasized that the tissue modelling and remodelling process in the augmented sockets is delayed with the use of Bio-Oss Collagen.10 Similar results have been presented in other studies in which different graft materials have been used to preserve ridge dimensions.11,12 The free gingival graft has also been used for alveolar ridge preservation in animal and human studies. This graft is preferred as it eliminates the need to elevate a full thickness mucoperiosteal flap and compensates for soft tissue deficiencies when immediate implant placement or a socket augmentation procedure is required.11,13–15 However, in some of the human studies that used the free gingival graft to cover the extraction socket, dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge were investigated using study casts or the master casts.16,17 The aim of this study was to determine the dimensional changes in the maxillary anterior extraction socket after 3 months of healing in humans, comparing sockets covered with a free gingival graft to those left to heal spontaneously using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. This study is reported in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines.

Table 1. Data for the patients included in the study.

Patient

Gender

Age, years

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Male Female Male

36 38 57 48 46 39 48 40 55 60

Materials and methods

This split-mouth, unblinded, randomized controlled clinical study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Study population

Ten adult patients (five females, five males) ranging in age from 36 to 60 years (mean 46.7 years) participated in this study between September 2011 and November 2012. Each patient had at least two maxillary anterior teeth that required extraction. Seven patients underwent multiple extractions in the anterior maxilla; the remaining three patients had two maxillary anterior teeth removed. However, only two extraction sockets per patient were included in the study. The 20 extraction sockets in these 10 patients were allocated randomly to one of two groups using a random number table: (1) a test group, in which the socket was covered with a free gingival graft and treated with the socket seal technique; (2) a control group, in which the extraction socket was allowed to heal spontaneously (n = 10 per group). The randomized codes were enclosed in sequentially sealed envelopes. Following the tooth extractions, the envelopes were opened and it was determined whether each extraction socket was to be used as a test site or control site. Patient demographic data and information on the teeth included in this study are presented in Table 1. The indications for extraction were advanced periodontal disease and/or prosthetic reasons. Exclusion criteria were the presence of uncontrolled systemic disease, any systemic condition compromising wound healing, and acute periodontal and/or odontogenic infection.

Total number and positions of extracted teeth

Control group

Test group

3 4 3 2 4 2 2 4 4 3

12 22 11 12 21 13 21 12 12 21

13 12 21 21 11 23 11 11 22 23

(11, (11, (11, (12, (11, (13, (21, (11, (11, (21,

12, 13) 12, 21, 22) 21, 13) 21) 21, 22, 23) 23) 11) 12, 21, 22) 12, 21, 22) 22, 23)

demonstrated good oral hygiene and compliance. On the day of extraction, following the administration of local anaesthesia (Maxicaine; Vem Medicine, Turkey), the teeth were carefully extracted without the elevation of a mucoperiosteal flap or compromising the marginal gingiva (Fig. 1). Care was taken to perform an atraumatic extraction to protect the periosteum and alveolar bone. The sockets were curetted to remove granulation tissue. The extraction sockets were assigned randomly to be a control site or a test site. In the control group, blood clots were allowed to form in the extraction socket and they were left to heal spontaneously. In the test group, the internal marginal gingiva of the extraction socket was deepithelialized with a number 15 scalpel to encourage vascularization of the free gingival graft. A trephine bur with a diameter corresponding to that of the socket orifice was chosen. A free gingival graft of approximately 2–3 mm in thickness was cut from the palate with this selected trephine bur and gently dissected using a sharp periosteal elevator, in accordance with the technique of Jung et al.18 (Fig. 2). The flap was adapted to the site and sutured to the marginal gingiva with six to eight interrupted sutures (4–0 Vicryl; Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, USA). The donor site was covered with a Xeroform sponge to allow for secondary healing (Fig. 3).

Surgical procedure

All patients were treated with scaling and root planing prior to the study and

Fig. 1. Intraoral appearance following tooth extractions.

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

Alveolar ridge preservation

Fig. 2. Trephine bur with a diameter corresponding to that of the socket orifice, and a free gingival graft harvested from the palate.

Fig. 3. Right and left maxillary canines were included in this study. In this photograph, the left maxillary canine has been covered with a free gingival graft and the right maxillary canine has been left to undergo secondary healing.

The patients were prescribed oral antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiseptic mouthwash. The Xeroform sponge was removed from the palate 3 days later and the sutures were removed 10 days after surgery. All patients were recalled at 3, 7, and 10 days and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements

To determine the alterations in the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction, CBCT scans were taken at baseline (the day of tooth extractions) and at 3 months postoperative using Veraviewepocs 3D (J. Morita Corp., USA). The tube potential, tube current, and rotation time were set to 80 kVp, 6 mA, and 9.4 s, respectively. The images were taken with a slice thickness of 1.5 mm and a slice distance of 1 mm, with a field of view (FOV) of 4  4 cm. The radiographic measurements were obtained from the sagittal sections of the CBCT scans using computer software. The localization of the sagittal section was determined on the basis of anatomical landmarks in the axial and coronal sections. The reference points were the

incisive foramen in the axial section and the median palatine suture in the coronal section. The horizontal line passing through the centre of the incisive foramen in the axial section was used to find the coronal section, and the parallel line passing through the midline of the median palatine suture was accepted as an initial section. The distance between the initial section and the section of the extraction socket was determined for the sagittal section to be measured (Fig. 4). Subsequently, the measurements were made at baseline and at 3 months using the same reference points and the same millimetre distances. The heights and widths of the extraction sockets were measured in the buccal and lingual aspects according to the technique of Arau´jo and Lindhe.19 To set a reference in each sagittal section, a line from the apex of the socket to the most coronal part of the socket through the long axis of the extraction socket was drawn to separate the buccal and lingual compartments. From the most coronal point of the buccal and lingual crest, two horizontal lines perpendicular to this line were drawn to measure the widths of the buccal and lingual bone walls. The vertical distances under these horizontal lines were also determined and taken as the height of the buccal and lingual bone walls (Fig. 5). Differences in the alveolar ridge dimensions measured at baseline and at 3 months were expressed in millimetres; values were positive in the case of a gain or negative in the case of loss of the bony wall. The CBCT measurements were done by the same researcher using the same technique at the two different time points. Therefore, the reliability of the measurement technique was also evaluated statistically. Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using a statistical software program developed by a statistician in the Division of Biostatistics, University of Hacettepe. Descriptive statistics were used to indicate the medians and the minimum and maximum values in each treatment group. Differences in the dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge at the control and test

Fig. 4. Axial, coronal, and sagittal sections of a CBCT scan.

3

Fig. 5. Measurements made on the sagittal section. v-bc: height of the buccal crest; v-lc: height of the lingual crest; h-bc: width of the buccal crest; h-lc: width of the lingual crest.

sites after 3 months of healing were tested by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. Differences between the test group and the control group after 3 months were analysed using the Mann–Whitney U-test; differences in measurements from the test and control sites for each time point were examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. 95% Confidence intervals were calculated. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the reliability of the measurements that were performed by the same researcher at the two different time points. The reliability of the measurements was defined as ‘poor’ if the ICC was 0.70. Results

All patients completed the study. No postoperative complications were recorded in either group. All extraction sites healed uneventfully. Qualitative analysis

Soft tissue healing of the extraction sockets was assessed visually by clinical inspection on days 3, 7, and 10 and months 1 and 3 postoperatively. No measurements of soft tissue volume were recorded for the preoperative or postoperative period. After 3 days of healing, the extraction sockets in the control group exhibited epithelial invagination into the socket centre,

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

4

Karaca et al. Table 2. Initial and final measurements for each of the 10 study patients.a Initial, mm

Final, mm

Control site

Test site

Control site

Test site

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

9.65 8.44 3.85 3.22

5.29 3.90 5.02 2.62

4.31 5.24 2.62 3.08

4.62 5.55 2.31 2.62

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

10.2 9.90 4.19 2.16

6.41 6.74 3.92 4.62

8.53 8.41 2.88 2.29

8.07 8.22 2.73 3.21

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

7.25 7.53 3.41 4.72

9.85 8.23 5.02 4.04

7.09 8.78 2.47 3.39

9.58 8.46 4.00 3.96

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

4.78 3.81 3.97 2.91

2.96 5.09 3.16 3.42

4.47 3.16 3.06 3.05

3.38 6.50 2.35 2.35

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

6.82 6.62 3.73 4.41

7.81 6.15 4.00 3.95

6.13 6.15 2.96 3.86

6.39 6.43 3.68 3.70

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

12.96 15.64 3.94 3.72

6.58 9.57 3.17 3.59

12.43 13.72 2.62 3.44

7.75 7.95 2.97 2.49

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

7.27 5.61 3.61 3.66

9.15 5.55 3.66 3.32

5.83 5.53 2.20 2.39

6.88 5.46 2.43 2.39

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

4.72 3.75 3.41 3.61

2.09 6.48 2.83 5.68

3.42 3.39 1.73 3.53

3.33 6.86 1.87 4.08

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

9.38 7.30 3.79 3.04

7.38 7.59 4.20 2.75

8.61 7.51 3.38 2.83

7.78 7.43 3.54 2.91

10 v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

5.75 5.45 3.17 5.57

14.52 9.89 4.93 3.08

3.81 4.68 1.95 4.72

14.14 8.93 3.75 3.80

Patient 1

Fig. 6. Photograph taken after 3 days of healing. The control site extraction socket has epithelialized. At the test site, degeneration and sloughing of the epithelium has started.

and the tissue shrinkage resulted in a reduction in the bucco-palatal dimension. In the test group, degeneration and sloughing of the epithelium occurred. The grafts became softened and swollen (Fig. 6). After 7 days of healing, the graft surfaces in the test group exhibited superficial necrosis. All surfaces were ischaemic and yellowish-white. The healing of the sockets in the control group had nearly completed. After 10 days of healing, the swelling of the free gingival grafts in the test group had decreased due to increasing nutrition. Vascularized tissue was observed between the marginal gingiva and the gingival graft, although the necrosis in the centre of the socket continued. The sockets in the control group had healed completely (Fig. 7). After a month of healing, the grafts were completely integrated into the surrounding gingiva. No necrosis was observed in any graft. The grafts were healthy in colour, and their thicknesses around the gingiva were similar. Three months later, although it was difficult to distinguish the control and test sites, significant invaginations in the bucco-palatal dimension at the control sites were observed (Fig. 8). The Xeroform sponge was removed 3 days after the tooth extractions. All patients

Fig. 7. Photograph taken after 10 days of healing. The control site has healed completely. Superficial necrosis of the gingival graft is seen at the test site, but vascularization has started at the peripheral margins of the graft.

Fig. 8. Photograph taken after 3 months of healing. The graft is completely integrated (green arrow). Bucco-lingual invagination is observed at the control site (blue arrow). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

suffered mild to moderate pain until epithelialization of the donor site had completed. However, the sites healed uneventfully within 2 weeks.

2

3

4

Quantitative analysis

The measurements obtained for the 10 patients and the results of the dimensional changes after 3 months are displayed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In the control group, the mean dimensional change in the height of the buccal crest was 1.03 mm (range 5.34 to 0.16 mm) (P = 0.005) and that in the height of the lingual crest was 0.56 mm (range 3.2 to 1.25 mm) (P = 0.059) after 3 months of healing. The intra-group differences between the values at baseline and at 3 months were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean dimensional change in the width of the buccal crest was 1.22 mm (range 1.68 to 0.41 mm) (P = 0.005) and that in the width of lingual crest was 0.24 mm (range 1.33 to 0.14 mm) (P = 0.025) (Fig. 9). The intragroup differences between the values at baseline and at 3 months were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In the test group, the mean dimensional change in the height of the buccal crest was +0.06 mm (range 2.27 to 1.66 mm) (P = 0.878) and that in the height of the lingual crest was +0.25 mm (range 1.62 to 1.65 mm) (P = 0.333). The intra-group differences between the values at baseline and at 3 months were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The mean dimensional change in the width of the buccal crest was 0.99 mm (range 2.71 to 0.20 mm) (P = 0.005) and that in the width of lingual crest was 0.59 mm (range 1.6 to 0.72 mm) (P = 0.051) (Fig. 10). The intra-group differences between the values at baseline and at 3 months were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

5

6

7

8

9

v-bc, vertical buccal crest; v-lc, vertical lingual crest; h-bc, horizontal buccal crest; h-lc, horizontal lingual crest. a Initial = CBCT on the day of extraction. Final = CBCT 3 months later.

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

Alveolar ridge preservation Table 3. Initial and final measurements of the 10 study subjects.a Control group, median values, mm

Test group, median values, mm

Measures

Initial

Final

Difference

Initial

Final

v-bc v-lc h-bc h-lc

7.26 6.96 3.76 3.63

5.98 5.84 2.62 3.23

1.03 0.56 1.22 0.24

6.98 6.61 3.96 3.50

7.31 7.14 2.85 3.06

Difference +0.06 +0.25 0.99 0.59

v-bc, vertical buccal crest; v-lc, vertical lingual crest; h-bc, horizontal buccal crest; h-lc, horizontal lingual crest. a Initial = CBCT on the day of extraction. Final = CBCT 3 months later.

The mean differences in the heights of the buccal and lingual crestal bones between the control group and the test group were statistically significant (P = 0.029 and P = 0.052, respectively). The mean differences in the widths of the buccal and lingual crestal bones between the control group and the test group were not statistically significant (P = 0.247 and P = 0.796, respectively).

Fig. 9. Sagittal CBCT scan sections of the control site (a) on the day of extraction, and (b) at 3 months following extraction.

With regard to the measurements that were performed at the two different time points, the ICC varied between 0.722 and 0.990. The reliability of the measurements was regarded as ‘good’. Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the use of a free gingival graft to cover the

Fig. 10. Sagittal CBCT scan sections of the test site (a) on the day of extraction, and (b) at 3 months following extraction.

5

orifice of the extraction socket can preserve the height of the buccal and lingual crestal bones following tooth extraction. However, in this study, the widths of the buccal and lingual crestal bones exhibited similar resorption rates in the control and test groups, and the differences were not statistically significant. Socket seal surgery was introduced to optimize the preservation of the hard and soft tissue components of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction.20 This surgical technique is simple and minimally invasive in clinical practice and can be applied at low cost compared to other alveolar ridge preservation techniques. Several measurement techniques have already been used to determine the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge in clinical and in vitro studies, including direct measurements, two-dimensional radiographs (e.g. peri-apical and panoramic radiographs), and study casts. However, direct intra-surgical measurements during re-entry surgery or three-dimensional radiographic evaluation of the hard tissues is recommended to accurately estimate the changes in alveolar ridge dimensions following tooth extraction.21 In this study, measurements from CBCT scans were used to evaluate the effect of the free gingival graft covering the extraction socket on horizontal and vertical dimensional changes in the maxillary anterior extraction socket. After 3 months of healing, the buccal and lingual crestal bones of the control sockets had lost height ( 1.03 mm and 0.56, respectively), whereas the test sites that were covered with the free gingival graft had gained buccal and lingual crestal bone height (+0.06 mm and +0.25 mm, respectively). This difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). To our knowledge, this is the first study to determine the effects of the free gingival graft on the preservation of alveolar ridge dimensions following tooth extraction in humans using CBCT measurements. The term ‘alveolar ridge preservation’ is defined by the preservation of the ridge volume within the envelope at the end of the extraction procedure.22 Therefore, the newly formed bone following tooth extraction almost always follows the outline of the existing bony walls.5,23 However, this is not the case for vertical defects of the buccal wall. These defects are limited by the architecture of the buccal wall; the height of the proximal bone margin appears to be the factor that determines the degree of potential bone regeneration,24 which might explain the preservation of the buccal

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

6

Karaca et al.

and lingual wall heights in the current study. The free gingival graft may be supported up to the proximal margins such that the height of the buccal and lingual bony walls is protected. Recent systematic reviews have suggested that alveolar ridge preservation procedures are effective in limiting vertical and horizontal ridge alterations following tooth extraction.25,26 However, none of the published techniques is able to completely preserve the alveolar ridge contour. Nevins et al.27 determined the buccal plate resorption of the maxillary anterior teeth after 30–90 days using computed tomography (CT) scans. Due to the measurement technique used, these authors could estimate only the change in height of the buccal plate. They reported that the mean difference in the control sites that healed spontaneously was 5.24 mm, and the mean difference in the test sites that were treated with Bio-Oss was 2.42 mm at the end of the observation period. In another study, Fiorellini et al. used bone morphogenetic proteins for socket augmentation of the maxillary anterior teeth and evaluated CT scans after 4 months of healing. The changes in bone height were reported to be 1.30 mm for the control sites that healed spontaneously and to vary from 0.96 to 0.08 mm for the test sites.28 This higher resorption rate compared to the current study may be related to the surgical protocols used. It has been suggested that the surgical trauma caused by flap elevation results in greater resorption of the buccal plate.29 In our study, all extractions were performed atraumatically to protect the periosteum, while in other studies, partial or full thickness flaps were elevated to provide primary closure. One of the limitations of this study is the small number of subjects, but the comparisons were made with a split-mouth design. The other limitation relates to the selected healing period and the CBCT measurement technique. In this study, CBCT scans were used to determine the alterations in the alveolar ridge after 3 months of healing. The lamina dura was the reference point used to measure the buccal and lingual bony walls in the extraction sockets. This was only partially resorbed at 3 months after tooth extraction, which allowed us to measure the bony walls with high accuracy. However, if a longer healing period is chosen in future studies, a more constant anatomical point, for example the nasal cavity, should be selected, as total resorption of the lamina dura could prevent accurate measurements being obtained.

It has been suggested that if multiple neighbouring teeth are removed, alveolar ridge resorption increases due to the decrease in the inter-dental blood supply to the extraction sockets.30 In this study, multiple tooth extractions were performed in seven patients (Table 1); however the effect of this on the resorption rate was not assessed in the present study. We recommend that future studies utilize standardized methodologies that take this anatomical and physiological knowledge into account. In light of the results of this study, we conclude that covering the extraction socket with a free gingival graft is sufficiently effective to preserve the heights of the buccal and lingual crestal bones. This technique was, however, found to be insufficient in avoiding tissue shrinkage, and the resorption rates of the widths of the buccal and lingual crestal bones in the test group were similar to those of the control group at the end of the healing period. Therefore further investigations are needed to clarify the role of the use of the free gingival graft as an alveolar ridge preservation technique. Funding

The authors declare no sources of funding. Competing interests

The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study. Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University, Turkey (Ref. No. FON11/37-34). Patient consent

All patients gave written consent for publication of the clinical photographs. Acknowledgement. The authors thank the staff of Ayrıntı Dental Imaging Centre, Ankara, Turkey for assistance in obtaining the CBCT scans.

References 1. Bartee BK. Extraction site reconstruction for alveolar ridge preservation. Part 1: rationale and materials selection. J Oral Implantol 2001;27:187–93. 2. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J Prosthet Dent 1967;17:21–7.

3. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction. Aust Dent J 1969;14: 241–4. 4. Carlsson GE, Persson G. Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing of dentures. A longitudinal, clinical, and X-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. Odontol Revy 1967;18:27–54. 5. Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Klokkevold PR, Weinlaender M, Kenney EB, Dimitrijevic B, et al. Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes. J Periodontol 1998;69:1044–9. 6. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:313–23. 7. Pagni G, Pellegrini G, Giannobile WV, Rasperini G. Postextraction alveolar ridge preservation: biological basis and treatments. Int J Dent 2012;2012:151030. 8. Artzi Z, Tal H, Dayan D. Porous bovine bone mineral in healing of human extraction sockets: 2. Histochemical observations at 9 months. J Periodontol 2001;72:152–9. 9. Carmagnola D, Adriaens P, Berglundh T. Healing of human extraction sockets filled with Bio-Oss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:137–43. 10. Lindhe J, Cecchinato D, Donati M, Tomasi C, Liljenberg B. Ridge preservation with the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:786–90. 11. Jung RE, Philipp A, Annen BM, Signorelli L, Thoma DS, Ha¨mmerle CH, et al. Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2013;40:90–8. 12. Lindhe J, Arau´jo MG, Bufler M, Liljenberg B. Biphasic alloplastic graft used to preserve the dimension of the edentulous ridge: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1158–63. 13. Tal H. Autogenous masticatory mucosal grafts in extraction socket seal procedures: a comparison between sockets grafted with demineralized freeze-dried bone and deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:289–96. 14. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Stappert CF, Stein JM, Hu¨rzeler MB. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour after different socket preservation techniques. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:906–13. 15. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Kebschull M, Hu¨rzeler MB. Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation with additional buccal overbuilding: a study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:898–904. 16. Oghli AA, Steveling H. Ridge preservation following tooth extraction: a comparison between atraumatic extraction and socket

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

YIJOM-3084; No of Pages 7

Alveolar ridge preservation

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

seal surgery. Quintessence Int 2010;41: 605– 9. Thalmair T, Fickl S, Schneider D, Hinze M, Wachtel H. Dimensional alterations of extraction sites after different alveolar ridge preservation techniques—a volumetric study. J Clin Periodontol 2013;40:721–7. Jung RE, Siegenthaler DW, Ha¨mmerle CH. Postextraction tissue management: a soft tissue punch technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24:545–53. Arau´jo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:212–8. Landsberg CJ, Bichacho N. A modified surgical/prosthetic approach for optimal single implant supported crown. Part I—The socket seal surgery. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1994;6:11–7. Horva´th A, Mardas N, Mezzomo LA, Needleman IG, Donos N. Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:341–63. Ha¨mmerle CH, Arau´jo MG, Simion M, Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Evidencebased knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:80–2.

23. Lekovic V, Kenney EB, Weinlaender M, Han T, Klokkevold P, Nedic M, et al. A bone regenerative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following tooth extraction. Report of 10 cases. J Periodontol 1997;68:563–70. 24. Hoffmann O, Bartee BK, Beaumont C, Kasaj A, Deli G, Zafiropoulos GG. Alveolar bone preservation in extraction sockets using nonresorbable dPTFE membranes: a retrospective non-randomized study. J Periodontol 2008;79:1355–69. 25. Horowitz R, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS. A review on alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2012;12:149–60. 26. Vittorini Orgeas G, Clementini M, De Risi V, De Sanctis M. Surgical techniques for alveolar socket preservation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1049–61. 27. Nevins M, Camelo M, De Paoli S, Friedland B, Schenk RK, Parma Benfenati S, et al. A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:19–29. 28. Fiorellini JP, Howell TH, Cochran D, Malmquist J, Lilly LC, Spagnoli D, et al. Randomized study evaluating recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for extraction

7

socket augmentation. J Periodontol 2005;76: 605–13. 29. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler M. Tissue alterations after tooth extraction with and without surgical trauma: a volumetric study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:356–63. 30. Al-Hezaimi K, Levi P, Rudy R, Al-Jandan B, Al-Rasheed A. An extraction socket classification developed using analysis of bone type and blood supply to the buccal bone in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:421–7.

Address: C ¸ ig˘dem Karaca Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Faculty of Dentistry Hacettepe University Sıhhiye Ankara Turkey Tel: +90 312 305 22 20

Please cite this article in press as: Karaca C, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.01.015

Alveolar ridge preservation with a free gingival graft in the anterior maxilla: volumetric evaluation in a randomized clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional changes in maxillary extraction sockets that have healed spontaneously and those tre...
1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 10 Views