• Users Online: 3028
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
EVIDENCE SUMMARY
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 381-385

Intervention for replacing missing teeth: Alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development - evidence summary of Cochrane review


Department of Prosthodontics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pilliyarkuppam, Puducherry, India

Correspondence Address:
Srinivasan Jayaraman
Department of Prosthodontics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pilliyarkuppam, Puducherry
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.171824

Rights and Permissions

The Cochrane reviews have transparent reporting of the methodology to clarify the reader the methods used for writing the review; hence, each review becomes a large volume of scientific literature. This evidence summary of the Cochrane review published in 2015 for the question, what are the clinical effects (preservation of both width and height of bone, esthetic outcomes, complications, and failure of implant) for different alveolar ridge preservation techniques (ARP) and materials used in patients planning implant placement following extraction after 6 months follow-up. This review provides evidence for efficacy of different ARP techniques, materials, and superiority of one over the other. It also tries to settle the controversy of timing of placement of implant after grafting. Of the 8 included studies from 50, two trials provide moderate evidence for xenografts versus extraction favoring xenografts in preserving the width and height of bone by 1.97 mm (2.48–1.46) and 2.60 mm (3.43–1.76), respectively in pooled estimates of meta-analysis. Using different material, five-trial were found; of which, two trials provide moderate evidence for alloplast versus xenografts favoring alloplast in preserving the width by 0.44 mm (0.90–0.02) and low-grade evidence for height of bone by 0.35 mm (0.86–0.16) in pooled estimates of meta-analysis. There is a paucity of randomized controlled trial to address other primary and secondary outcomes addressed in this review.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed901    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal