» Articles » PMID: 39346183

Comparative Analysis of Two Different Techniques for Ridge Preservation Following Tooth Extraction: A Clinical and Radiographic Study

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2024 Sep 30
PMID 39346183
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Ridge preservation following tooth extraction is essential for maintaining the alveolar bone structure and facilitating successful dental implant placement. Various techniques have been proposed for this purpose, but there remains a need for comparative analysis to determine their efficacy.

Materials And Methods: This clinical and radiographic study compared two different techniques for ridge preservation: Technique A and Technique B. Fifty patients requiring tooth extraction were randomly assigned to either Technique A or Technique B group. Clinical parameters including pain, swelling, and soft tissue healing were evaluated postoperatively. Radiographic assessments were conducted to measure the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge at baseline and after 3 months using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Results: In the Technique A group, postoperative pain scores averaged 2.3 (±0.5) on a visual analog scale (VAS), while in the Technique B group, the average pain score was 2.5 (±0.6). The swelling was minimal in both groups with no significant difference. Soft tissue healing was satisfactory in both groups. Radiographically, the mean vertical bone loss was 1.2 mm (±0.3) in the Technique A group and 0.9 mm (±0.4) in the Technique B group, with a statistically significant difference ( < 0.05).

Conclusion: Both Technique A and Technique B demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of postoperative discomfort and soft tissue healing. However, Technique B showed superior preservation of vertical ridge dimensions compared to Technique A. Therefore, Technique B may be considered more effective for ridge preservation following tooth extraction.

References
1.
Araujo M, Lindhe J . Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(2):212-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. View

2.
Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F . Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46 Suppl 21:195-223. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13057. View

3.
Barone A, Ricci M, Tonelli P, Santini S, Covani U . Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: a comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(11):1231-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02535.x. View

4.
Ten Heggeler J, Slot D, Van der Weijden G . Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(8):779-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x. View

5.
Jung R, Philipp A, Annen B, Signorelli L, Thoma D, Hammerle C . Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2012; 40(1):90-8. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12027. View