The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2025
Impact of alveolar ridge preservation on soft tissue contour changes after extraction of a periodontally compromised molar: A prospective controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Liman, Wei Yiping, Hu Wenjie, Zhao Liping, Xu Tao
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Tooth extraction can lead to changes in the soft tissue ridge morphology, which could jeopardize prosthetically driven implant placement. However, studies that comprehensively analyze the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation in terms of soft tissue contour changes after extracting periodontally compromised molars are lacking.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective controlled clinical trial was to compare alveolar ridge preservation and natural healing in terms of soft tissue volumetric and linear contour changes in periodontally compromised molars 6 months after extraction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty participants (n=15 for each group) with severe periodontitis-induced damaged extraction sockets were sequentially allocated to either the natural healing or alveolar ridge preservation group after single-tooth extraction. Volumetric and linear contour changes of soft tissue dimension were evaluated by scanning casts made before and 6 months after surgery. Data analysis involved Pearson chi-squared tests, the independent samples t test and the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: After 6 months of healing, the alveolar ridge preservation group demonstrated significantly less buccal volumetric reduction of soft tissue (68.8 ±38.8 mm³) compared with the natural healing group (116.9 ±62.8 mm³) (P<.05). Both groups exhibited greater horizontal width reductions in the central section than in the distal and mesial sections, with a gradual decrease in contour collapse from 1 to 5 mm apically from the gingival margin. Statistically significant differences in buccolingual tissue contour changes were observed at 1 and 3 mm apically in the central socket between the groups (P<.05). The reduction at 1 mm was 6.09 ±1.71 mm in the natural healing group and 4.38 ±2.29 mm in the alveolar ridge preservation group, as well as a reduction of 4.23 ±1.90 mm and 2.77 ±1.51 mm at 3 mm, respectively. Additional bone augmentation was needed in 53.3% of the natural healing group and 13.3% in the alveolar ridge preservation group (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the alveolar ridge preservation technique may not entirely prevent soft ridge contour collapse in periodontally compromised molars, it can effectively preserve the buccal volume and central contour of the extraction sockets compared with natural healing.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective controlled clinical trial was to compare alveolar ridge preservation and natural healing in terms of soft tissue volumetric and linear contour changes in periodontally compromised molars 6 months after extraction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty participants (n=15 for each group) with severe periodontitis-induced damaged extraction sockets were sequentially allocated to either the natural healing or alveolar ridge preservation group after single-tooth extraction. Volumetric and linear contour changes of soft tissue dimension were evaluated by scanning casts made before and 6 months after surgery. Data analysis involved Pearson chi-squared tests, the independent samples t test and the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: After 6 months of healing, the alveolar ridge preservation group demonstrated significantly less buccal volumetric reduction of soft tissue (68.8 ±38.8 mm³) compared with the natural healing group (116.9 ±62.8 mm³) (P<.05). Both groups exhibited greater horizontal width reductions in the central section than in the distal and mesial sections, with a gradual decrease in contour collapse from 1 to 5 mm apically from the gingival margin. Statistically significant differences in buccolingual tissue contour changes were observed at 1 and 3 mm apically in the central socket between the groups (P<.05). The reduction at 1 mm was 6.09 ±1.71 mm in the natural healing group and 4.38 ±2.29 mm in the alveolar ridge preservation group, as well as a reduction of 4.23 ±1.90 mm and 2.77 ±1.51 mm at 3 mm, respectively. Additional bone augmentation was needed in 53.3% of the natural healing group and 13.3% in the alveolar ridge preservation group (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the alveolar ridge preservation technique may not entirely prevent soft ridge contour collapse in periodontally compromised molars, it can effectively preserve the buccal volume and central contour of the extraction sockets compared with natural healing.