• Users Online: 2927
  • 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 


 
 Table of Contents  
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

Date of Submission17-Nov-2015
Date of Acceptance07-Dec-2015
Date of Web Publication14-Dec-2015

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
  Abstract 


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.

Keywords: Alveolar ridge preservation, evidence summary, implant placement


How to cite this article:
Jayaraman S. Intervention for replacing missing teeth: Alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development - evidence summary of Cochrane review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15:381-5

How to cite this URL:
Jayaraman S. Intervention for replacing missing teeth: Alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development - evidence summary of Cochrane review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Sep 18];15:381-5. Available from: http://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2015/15/4/381/171824




  Interpreting Summary of Finding Table in Cochrane Review Top


The Cochrane reviews can answer short or broad questions and 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 literature. There are few must read and know areas in a Cochrane review; one such table is the summary of finding (SOF) table of the main comparison to quickly know the evidence reported from the review when the reader has less time to read all the results of the review.[1] It is usually presented up font in the review after abstract and plain language summary. These tables provide the reader the summary of most important outcomes for the single or multiple interventions based on the reviews question. It contains the following: (1) Important outcomes for the main comparison, (2) assumed risk of control group, (3) corresponding intervention group risk, (4) effect measures such as relative risk (risk ratios) or means difference based on the results of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) at 95% confidence interval (CI), (5) number of participants, and (6) graded quality of evidence along with the comments from the author. The relative risk or risk ratio is the ratio between the risk in intervention group and in control group (before the intervention). CI must be narrower around the effect estimates, and broader reflects chance occurrence. The quality of evidence is graded based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation- using GRADE Pro GDT software) and gives a judgment on the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, and very low for each outcome in the intervention to make informed decisions.[2] It also means that if it is high-quality evidence – further research is very unlikely to change the findings of the review; moderate-quality – further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate and may change the estimate; low-quality –further research is very likely to have an important impact and very likely to change the results of the estimate; very-low-quality – uncertain about the estimates. Blank space indicates information, is not relevant. Whenever the SOF tables state anything below high-quality evidence, then there is a definite need for further primary research in that area to do high-quality RCT for that research question posed by that Cochrane review to improve the quality of evidence from moderate or low to high. The Cochrane reviews are updated every 2 years, and the new trial gets added in the updated review, may change the quality of evidence reported later. This is the only way ahead to improve quality of care for our patients.


  Review Background Description Top


Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is the procedure of arresting or minimizing the alveolar ridge resorption following extraction for future prosthodontic treatment including implant placement. The different ARP techniques used routinely are grafting of human (autograft and allograft), bovine (xenograft) or Synthetic (alloplast) with and without the use of different barrier membrane. Barrier membrane may either be resorbable or non resorbable membrane.


  Clinical Question Top


The broad question posed in this review is – what are the clinical effects (preservation of both width and height of bone, esthetic outcomes, complications, and failure of the implant) for different alveolar ridge preservation technique (ARP) and materials used in patients planning implant placement following extraction after 6 months follow-up.[3]

  • Problem/patients – in patient planning delayed implant placement following extraction
  • Intervention – different ARP techniques and materials
  • Control – extraction or other different methods of ARP
  • Outcomes – preservation of both width and height of bone, esthetic, complications, and failure of implant.



  Review Methods -Description Top


This review finds the evidence for efficacy with 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. The studies were searched up to 22 July 2014 in electronic data basaes (Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILAC, web of science, Scopus, Proquest, major trial registries), and hand searched, 321 records were identified and screened for review title and abstract based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 50 of which were eligible were assessed and reviewed by full text, only 8 trials were included and 42 trials excluded of which 21 had <6 months follow-up being the main reason for exclusion. In the eight included studies seven trials had high risk of bias except one with unclear risk of bias. In total, 184 participants and 233 extraction sites were included in the analysis.

Type of outcomes primary

  • Changes in the buccolingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge
  • Changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge
  • Complications (e.g., discomfort, pain, and swelling)
  • In need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement
  • Esthetic outcomes of future prosthodontics rehabilitation
  • Implant failure rate.


Secondary outcomes

  • Peri-implant marginal bone level changes
  • Changes in probing depth (PD) at teeth adjacent to the extraction site
  • Changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) at teeth adjacent to the extraction site
  • Prosthodontic outcomes of rehabilitation.



  Summary of Key Evidence Top


There are two main intervention in this review one different ARP techniques with different material combinations used to compare or to extraction alone (No ARP was performed) and other intervention compared different grafting materials alone. In the eight trials included in the review for the first intervention different ARP techniques and materials used only ARP techniques and materials used only ARP technique- Grafting versus extraction were found [Table 1]. Of the three trials from the included studies two addressed xenograft versus extraction, extraction, the meta-analyses pooled estimate favors' xenografts. The two trials provide moderate evidence for xenografts versus extraction 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. One parallel group trial compared allograft versus extraction, with statistical significance favoring allografts.
Table 1: Available evidence for alveolar ridge preservation technique-Grafting versus extraction

Click here to view


In the second intervention comparing different grafting materials, five trials were found to address this intervention of the included studies [Table 2]. (a) Alloplast versus xenograft two trials provided moderate evidence for allograft 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. The other outcomes, need for additional augmentation two trials showed no evidence of difference in meta-analysis and implant failure none failed after 12 months, (b) alloplast with and without membrane for change in width and height of bone one trial with high risk of bias favors alloplast alone without membrane, (c) alloplast with and without cell-binding peptide P-15 no statistical significance was seen between groups in one trial addressing this issue for preserving bone height and width, and (d) Alloplast with different particle size no statistical significance was seen between groups in one trial addressing this issue for preserving bone height and width.
Table 2: Available evidence comparing different grafting materials

Click here to view



  Clinical Practice Recommendation Top


There is moderate evidence favoring xenograft versus extraction and moderate to low favoring alloplast versus xenograft as there are only two trials addressing both the ARP techniques and materials, results must be used with caution as almost all studies have high risk of bias except one when assessing the risk of bias in included studies (internal validity). There is general agreement that implants can be placed after 6 months of grafting. There is no evidence to state that ARP increased or decreased implant complications or success due to lack of studies with these outcomes.


  Future Research Recommendations Top


Many ARP technique and materials done regularly are missing in this review as they are yet to be compared in randomized controlled trail for both the primary and secondary outcome stated in this review. The body of evidence for both interventions found in the eight included studies is moderate to low meaning further primary research in that area are needed to do high-quality RCT for the research question posed by this Cochrane review to improve the quality of evidence from moderate or low to high for all the primary and secondary outcomes. All implantologist can strive to address areas of concern addressed in this review in which lack of evidence for ARP techniques used routinely to preserve bone to improve the quality of care for our patients.

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank our eminent Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Shilpa Shetty for taking the Cochrane reviews to the Indian Prosthodontic fraternity and Mr. Richard Kirubakaran of Cochrane South Asia, CMC, Vellore, for his constant support.

The author acknowledges and thanks the authors of this Cochrane review Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, Duncan W, Faggion CM, and Esposito M.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflict of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Intervention Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. [Last accessed on 2015 Nov 14; Last updated on 2011 Mar].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Available from: http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org. [Last accessed on 2015 Nov 14].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Duncan W, Faggion CM, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;5:CD010176.  Back to cited text no. 3
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Interpreting Sum...
Review Backgroun...
Clinical Question
Review Methods -...
Summary of Key E...
Clinical Practic...
Future Research ...
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed900    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]