|
Ridge preservation: review of the literatureFrom: Terry Pannkuk To: ankylos@rxdentistry.com Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:58 PM Subject: Ridge preservation: review of the literature Whether 75 percent bone volume is lost or not, one has to ask themselves what does that volume consist of? If it isn’t native bone it isn’t osteoinductive unless it is BMP which is still a bit out of the economic picture as a routine especially for minor ridge defects. If you are simply filling a socket with osteoconductive hamburger helper that is unlikely to integrate threads of an implant who cares that you are getting it down to 25%? It’s very misleading in the same way focusing on survivability as opposed to success is. The literature seems to point this out. Grafting is more financial than benefical in the majority of cases it is employed. Stuff burger helper and you get paid more. It seems much more elegant to meticulously and atraumatically extract a tooth protecting the interseptal bone/furcation/buccal bone then allow maximum native bone regeneration, because the implant will be integrating in the new forming socket bone. What in the world is the problem with placing an onlay graft or tacked membrane pouch of foo foo after the socket completely heals only if you need it? The morbidity is decreased. The risk of infection sequelae is decreased; and the maximum amount of true implant-bone integration is accomplished. Quite frankly we wouldn’t be talking about needing to place long implants if you didn’t have to get them deep through the crap people are routinely placing in sockets.- Terry Ridge preservation techniques for implant therapy. Darby I, Chen ST, Buser D. Periodontics, School of Dental Science, University of Melbourne, 720 Swanston Street, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. idarby@unimelb.edu.au Abstract PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the techniques and outcomes of postextraction ridge preservation and the efficacy of these procedures in relation to subsequent implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted and the bibliographies of reviews from 1999 to March 2008 were assessed for appropriate studies. Randomized clinical trials,controlled clinical trials, and prospective/ retrospective studies with a minimum of five patients were included. RESULTS: A total of 135 abstracts were identified, from which 53 full-text articles were further examined, leading to 37 human studies that fulfilled the search criteria.Many different techniques, methodologies, durations, and materials were presented in the publicationsreviewed, making direct comparison difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of the studies,it was concluded that ridge preservation procedures are effective in limiting horizontal and vertical ridge alterations in postextraction sites. There is no evidence to support the superiority of one technique over another. There is also no conclusive evidence that ridge preservation procedures improve the ability to place implants.