Autologous platelet concentrates in alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review with meta-analyses.

In order to evaluate the therapeutic advantages of various autologous platelet concentrates (APC) as a single biomaterial during alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), a systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were released prior to 2024. The selected papers compared an APC with either unassisted healing (blood clot) or another biomaterial during ARP (third molars were not included). The outcome parameters included alveolar bone dimension alterations, soft tissue healing, and post-op pain intensity. The search yielded 35 papers (33 studies), one applying platelet-rich plasma (PRP), six using plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), and 28 using leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). These studies showed a large heterogeneity (e.g., outcome parameters, timing, surgical approach, and inclusion criteria), which hindered drawing strong conclusions. In most studies, however, ARP with PRP, PRGF, and L-PRF alone produced faster soft tissue healing, less post-extraction pain, less alveolar ridge resorption, more socket bone fill, and a higher bone density when compared to unassisted (spontaneous) healing. The ultimate benefit appears to be significantly influenced by the surgical approach. Limited literature exists comparing APC with other biomaterials for ARP, resulting in inconclusive data. APC application for ARP is a promising strategy to improve soft and hard tissue healing and reduce post-extraction pain.

Instructions for the use of L-PRF in different clinical indications.

Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have demonstrated clear benefits across various clinical applications, including alveolar ridge preservation, guided tissue regeneration, guided bone regeneration, sinus floor elevation (both lateral window approach and transcrestal technique), endodontic surgery, the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw bones, and periodontal plastic surgery. To ensure an optimal clinical outcome, clinicians must adhere strictly to the protocol to prepare the APCs and, especially follow evidence-based surgical guidelines, often simple but crucial, to minimize the likelihood of errors. The majority of clinical trials reported on second-generation APCs [the leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) family, including its modifications (A-PRF, A-PRF+, CGF, T-PRF, H-PRF, etc.)]. These second-generation APCs offer additional benefits compared to the first-generation APCs, making them the preferred choice for the development of clinical recommendations. These recommendations have been formulated through a meticulous examination of the available clinical data and the clinical experience of the authors of this paper.

Introduction and overview on autogenous Platelet concentrates.

This special issue on autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) provides clinicians with an overview on the current understanding of the use of these biomaterials for soft and hard-tissue regeneration. The included papers summarize scientific evidence and the clinical findings, presented in simple tables that outline potential benefits including Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). This approach enables clinicians to assess clinical relevance and researchers to identify significant gaps in the literature. The first part provides a comprehensive summary of the basic science surrounding APC, with particular focus on their preparation methods. Clear recommendations are outlined, which are crucial for obtaining high-quality APCs, alongside an exploration of how APCs may influence both soft and hard tissue healing processes. Part 2 delves into the clinical evidence for the potential benefits of APCs across a range of applications: alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor elevation, periodontal plastic surgery, guided tissue regeneration, guided bone regeneration, the healing of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ), and endodontic surgery. In the part 3, the discussion turns to the effects of APCs on the healing of extra-oral wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure injuries, burns, and more. For those clinicians persuaded by the evidence, the fourth section offers a detailed, step-by-step flowchart for each treatment modality, providing a clear guide for clinical application.

The adjunctive effect of polydeoxyribonucleotide on bone formation in alveolar ridge preservation: A pre-clinical in vivo study.

AIM: This study investigated the adjunctive effect of polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) on bone formation in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both mandibular second, third and fourth premolars of eight beagle dogs were randomly divided into ARP and ARP/PDRN groups. Following tooth extraction, ARP procedures were conducted using collagenized alloplastic graft material and bilayer collagen membrane soaked with normal saline (ARP group) or PDRN (ARP/PDRN group) for 10 min before application. Both groups were also randomly allocated to 2-, 4- or 12-week healing subgroups. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare histomorphometric differences between ARP and ARP/PDRN. The secondary endpoints of this study were to compare micro-CT analysis and three-dimensional volumetric measurement between the two groups. RESULTS: In the histomorphometric analysis, the ARP/PDRN group exhibited greater new bone formation at coronal, middle and total position compared with the ARP group at 2-week healing. The number of newly formed blood vessels was higher in the ARP/PDRN group than in the ARP group at 2- and 4-week healing. In micro-CT analysis, the mean new bone volume/total bone volume between ARP and ARP/PDRN was statistically significant at 2-week healing. Ridge volume alterations were significantly decreased in the ARP/PDRN group during entire healing time compared with the ARP group, especially on the buccal side. CONCLUSIONS: The application of PDRN in ARP might provide additional benefits for early bone regeneration and maintenance of buccal ridge volume.

Efficacy and safety of a new heterologous fibrin biopolymer on socket bone healing after tooth extraction: An experimental pre-clinical study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy of heterologous fibrin biopolymer (HFB) in promoting alveolar bone healing after tooth extraction in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The upper right incisors of 48 Wistar rats were extracted. Toothless sockets were filled with HFB (HFBG, n = 24) or blood clot (BCG, n = 24). The tooth extraction sites were subjected to micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), histological, histomorphometric and immunohistochemical (for Runt-related transcription factor 2/Runx2 and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase/TRAP) analyses on days 0, 7, 14 and 42 after extraction. RESULTS: Socket volume remained similar between days 0 and 14 (69 ± 5.4 mm3), except in the BCG on day 14, when it was 10% lower (p = .043). Although the number of Runx2+ osteoblasts was high and similar in both groups (34 × 102 cells/mm2), the HFBG showed lower inflammatory process and osteoclast activity than BCG at 7 days. On day 14, the number of Runx2+ osteoblasts remained high and similar to the previous period in both groups. However, osteoclast activity increased. This increase was 55% lower in the HFBG than BCG. In the BCG, the presence of an inflammatory process and larger and numerous osteoclasts on day 14 led to resorption of the alveolar bone ridge and newly formed bone. On day 42, numbers of Runx2+ osteoblast and TRAP+ osteoclasts decreased dramatically in both groups. Although the BCG exhibited a more mature cortical bone formation, it exhibited a higher socket reduction (28.3 ± 6.67%) and smaller bone volume (37 ± 5.8 mm3) compared with HFBG (socket reduction of 14.8 ± 7.14% and total bone volume of 46 ± 5.4 mm3). CONCLUSIONS: HFB effectively suppresses osteoclast activity and reduces alveolar bone resorption compared with blood clot, thus preventing three-dimensional bone loss, particularly during the early healing period. HFB emerges as a promising biopharmaceutical material for enhancing healing processes after tooth extraction.

Assessment of soft and hard tissue changes following micro crestal flap-Alveolar ridge preservation and augmentation at molar extraction sites in patients with stage III/IV periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This study aimed to assess hard and soft tissue contour changes following micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation (MCF-ARP) and natural healing (NH) in periodontally compromised molar extraction sites and to analyse the feasibility and need for bone augmentation during implant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with 70 sites were randomized into two groups at the site level (35 sites from 31 patients in the test group and 35 sites from 29 patients in the control group). Among whom, four patients contributed one tooth to the control group and one tooth to the test group. Hard tissue indicators were measured using cone beam computed tomography performed before tooth extraction and 6 months after surgery. Soft tissue contour changes were assessed using intraoral scanning performed before and immediately after surgery and also 2 weeks and 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Six months after surgery, the MCF-ARP group showed less resorption in buccal bone height (p = .032) and greater augmentation in central bone height (p = .001) and ridge width (p = .009). The mean, vertical and horizontal collapse of buccal soft tissue contour in the MCF-ARP group were 0.95 mm (p = .010), 0.61 mm (p = .019) and 0.56 mm (p = .013) less than that in the NH group, respectively. There were significantly (p = .007) fewer sites in the MCF-ARP group than in the NH group (0% vs. 26.7%) for staged bone augmentation and more sites that could be treated with simple implant procedure in the MCF-ARP group than in the NH group (71.9% vs. 56.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NH, MCF-ARP reduced bone resorption in periodontally compromised molar extraction sites and maintained the buccal soft tissue contour. MCF-ARP reduces the need for complex bone augmentation procedures in implant therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR) ChiCTR2200056335. Registered on 4 February 2022, Version 1.0.

Alveolar ridge preservation of two-wall bone defects using mineralized dentin matrix: An experimental pre-clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To study bone healing of two-wall bone defects after alveolar ridge preservation using mineralized dentin matrix. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After distal roots extraction of second and fourth premolars (P2, P4) on one lateral mandible in 12 beagles, two-wall bone defects (5 × 5 × 5 mm) were surgically created distally to the remaining mesial roots of P2 and P4. A total of 24 sites were randomly allocated to three groups (implant material- time of execution): mineralized dentin matrix (MDM)-3 m (MDM + collagen membrane; 3 months), MDM-6 m (MDM particles + collagen membrane; 6 months), and C-6 m (collagen membrane only; 6 months). Clinical, radiographic, digital, and histological examinations were performed 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: The bone healing in MDM groups were better compared to Control group (volume of bone regenerated in total: 25.12 mm3 vs. 13.30 mm3, p = .046; trabecular volume/total volume: 58.84% vs. 39.18%, p = .001; new bone formation rate: 44.13% vs. 31.88%, p = .047). Vertically, the radiological bone level of bone defect in MDM-6 m group was higher than that in C-6 m group (vertical height of bone defect: 1.55 mm vs. 2.74 mm, p = .018). Horizontally, no significant differences in buccolingual bone width were found between MDM and C groups at any time or at any level below the alveolar ridge. The percentages of remaining MDM were <1% in both MDM-3 m and MDM-6 m groups. CONCLUSIONS: MDM improved bone healing of two-wall bone defects and might be considered as a socket fill material used following tooth extraction.

Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by -1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and -1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, -0.02; 0.94]; p = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.

Feasibility of Immediate, Early and Delayed Implant Placement for Single Tooth Replacement in the Premaxilla: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of 100 Cases.

AIM: To assess the feasibility of immediate (IIP), early (EIP) and delayed implant placement (DIP) for single tooth replacement in the premaxilla on the basis of the complete indication area of each approach in routine practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 100 patients (59 women, 41 men, all Caucasians) aged between 19 and 81 years old (mean age 51.71) who had been consecutively treated with a single implant in the premaxilla (13-23) in one private periodontal practice were retrospectively collected. Demographic data, diagnostic information and linear measurements were extracted from patient files and CBCTs. The feasibility of IIP, EIP and DIP was assessed for all cases by both authors, based on the following criteria: availability of apical bone, position of the tooth in relation to the morphology of the alveolar process, buccal bone morphology and presence of midfacial recession. The reasons for not being able to perform an approach, and the viable alternatives for each approach were secondary outcomes. DIP was considered to have been preceded by alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). RESULTS: Ninety-two patients could be treated by means of IIP, EIP or DIP. In eight patients none of these approaches were possible as they required bone augmentation prior to implant placement. Fifty-two patients (95% CI: 42%-62%) could by treated with IIP, 58 (95% CI: 48%-67%) with EIP and 88 (95% CI: 80%-93%) with DIP. The feasibility proportions of IIP and EIP were significantly lower than the one of DIP (p < 0.001). All patients who could be treated with IIP could also be treated with EIP or DIP. Lack of apical bone for implant anchorage was the main reason for not being able to perform IIP and EIP. Complete loss of the buccal bone wall and the need for bone augmentation prior to implant placement were the reasons for not being able to perform DIP. CONCLUSION: From the results of this retrospective CBCT analysis, DIP is nearly always possible in contrast to IIP and EIP. Therefore, and since it is much easier than IIP and EIP, inexperienced clinicians should mainly focus on ARP and DIP in clinical practice deferring IIP and EIP until more surgical skills have been acquired.

Alveolar ridge preservation in posterior maxillary teeth for reduction in the potential need for sinus floor elevation procedures: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on ridge height, sinus pneumatization and the potential need for lateral sinus augmentation following extraction in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled pilot study included 28 patients requiring extraction in the posterior maxilla with bone height between 6 and 8 mm. The sites were randomly allocated to either unassisted socket healing (Control), ARP with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) (Test 1), or collagen-stabilized DBBM (Test 2) groups. Pre- and post-operative CTs at 4 months were taken to determine changes in ridge heights, sinus volume, and the need for sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedures for cases where the residual mid-ridge height was < 5 mm. Site-level analyses for changes in vertical ridge dimensions and sinus volume pre- and post-extraction/ARP were conducted using paired t-tests. Differences in mean changes in vertical ridge dimensions and sinus volume between the groups were determined using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Significantly greater mean mid-ridge height reduction occurred in the control group (-2.7 ± 0.9 mm) compared to Test 1 (0.9 ± 3.7 mm) and Test 2 (1.0 ± 2.8 mm) groups (p < .05). No significant changes in mean mid-ridge height were found in either test groups. Volumetric analysis showed a significantly greater increase in sinus volume in the control group (0.7 ± 0.7 cm3) compared to Test 1 (n = 3, -0.7 ± 0.8 cm3) group (p = .03). 89% of patients in the control group would require lateral window SFE  compared to Test 1 (42.8%) and Test 2 (40%) groups. CONCLUSION: ARP was effective in attenuating height changes in the middle of the ridge and may reduce sinus pneumatization following extraction in the posterior maxilla. This could potentially decrease the need for more invasive sinus augmentation procedures.

Healing patterns of alveolar bone following ridge preservation procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the histomorphometric bone composition, following alveolar ridge preservation techniques and unassisted socket healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (42) requiring a single rooted tooth extraction were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 14 per group): Group 1: Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) using deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and a porcine collagen membrane; Group 2: Socket Seal (SS) technique using DBBM and a porcine collagen matrix; Group 3: Unassisted socket healing (Control). Trephined bone biopsies were harvested following a 4-month healing period. Forty-two samples underwent Back-Scattered Electrons -Scanning Electron Microscopy (BSE-SEM) imaging, with 15 samples examined using Xray Micro-Tomography (XMT) (n = 6 for each GBR/SS and n = 3 Control). Images were analysed to determine the percentage (%) of connective tissue, new bone formation, residual DBBM particles and direct bone to DBBM particle contact (osseointegration). RESULTS: BSE-SEM analysis demonstrated that new bone formation was higher in the Control (45.89% ± 11.48) compared to both GBR (22.12% ± 12.7/p < .004) and SS (27.62% ± 17.76/p < .005) groups. The connective tissue percentage in GBR (49.72% ± 9), SS (47.81% ± 12.57) and Control (47.81% ± 12.57) groups was similar. GBR (28.17% ± 16.64) and SS (24.37% ± 18.61) groups had similar levels of residual DBBM particles. XMT volumetric analysis indicated a lower level of bone and DBBM particles in all test groups, when matched to the BSE-SEM area measurements. Osseointegration levels (DBBM graft and bone) were recorded at 35.66% (± 9.8) for GBR and 31.18% (± 19.38) for SS. CONCLUSION: GBR and SS ARP techniques presented with less bone formation when compared to unassisted healing. GBR had more direct contact/osseointegration between the DBBM particles and newly formed bone.

Efficacy of autologous platelet concentrate products for alveolar preservation: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of autologous platelet concentrate products in the preservation of the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction through meta-analysis and provide a theoretical basis for the clinical application of autologous platelet concentrates to reduce alveolar bone resorption. METHODS: This study conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials between 2013 and 2023, focusing on autologous platelet concentrate products (e.g., PRP, PRF, CGF, and PRCF) used for alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction. The analysis included 122 articles and 371 extraction sockets. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4. RESULTS: Results indicate that these platelet concentrates effectively reduced changes in horizontal width 1 mm below the alveolar crest and vertical socket height. They also promoted a higher percentage of new bone formation in extraction sockets compared with control groups. However, they did not significantly prevent horizontal bone resorption at 3 and 5 mm below the alveolar crest. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, autologous platelet concentrates are useful for alveolar ridge preservation, but larger clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings due to the relatively small sample size in this study.

Evaluation and comparison of autologous particulate dentin with demineralized freeze dried bone allograft in ridge preservation procedures - a prospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare effectiveness of Autologous Particulate Dentin (APD) with Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft (DFDBA) in ridge preservation, using radiographic and clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects with indication of mandibular posterior teeth extraction were randomly assigned to either test or control group. After atraumatic extraction, ridge preservation was performed using APD or DFDBA mixed with i-PRF in test and control groups respectively. Both groups had sockets sealed with A-PRF membrane. Clinical parameters (plaque, gingival and healing indices) and radiographic parameters (vertical ridge height, horizontal ridge width) were assessed at baseline and 6 months using CBCT. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t-test to compare clinical and radiographic parameters between the groups. RESULTS: Both groups had significant decreases in ridge dimensions over 6 months (p < 0.001). The test group showed less reduction in ridge dimensions than control group at 6 months (p < 0.001). Mean change in vertical height was not significant (1.37 ± 1.32, 1.7311 ± 0.563), but in horizontal ridge width (1.3120 ± 1.13, 1.8093 ± 1.16) was significantly different between test and control groups respectively. There was no statistical difference in clinical parameters between the groups at 6 months (p > 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: APD grafts resulted in significant improvements in radiographic parameters, specifically in vertical ridge height and horizontal ridge width, compared to DFDBA group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Autologous particulate dentin is a promising, versatile substitute for regenerative procedures. While more research on its long-term efficacy and application is needed, current evidence suggests it could significantly improve patient care and outcomes.

Alveolar ridge preservation: Complications and cost-effectiveness.

Alveolar ridge preservation is routinely indicated in clinical practice with the purpose of attenuating postextraction ridge atrophy. Over the past two decades numerous clinical studies and reviews on this topic have populated the literature. In recent years the focus has primarily been on analyzing efficacy outcomes pertaining to postextraction dimensional changes, whereas other relevant facets of alveolar ridge preservation therapy have remained unexplored. With this premise, we carried out a comprehensive evidence-based assessment of the complications associated with different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation and modeled the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities as a function of changes in ridge width and height. We conclude that, among allogeneic and xenogeneic bone graft materials, increased expenditure does not translate into increased effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapy. On the other hand, a significant association between expenditure on a barrier membrane and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge resorption was observed, though only to a certain degree, beyond which the return on investment was significantly diminished.

Is alveolar ridge preservation an overtreatment?

The morphology and dimensions of the postextraction alveolar ridge are important for the surgical and restorative phases of implant treatment. Adequate new bone formation and preservation of alveolar ridge dimensions following extraction will facilitate installation of the implant in a restorative position, while preservation of soft tissue contour and volume is essential for an aesthetic and implant-supported restoration with healthy peri-implant tissues. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) refers to any procedure that aims to: (i) limit dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after extraction facilitating implant placement without additional extensive bone and soft tissue augmentation procedures (ii) promote new bone formation in the healing alveolus, and (iii) promote soft tissue healing at the entrance of the alveolus and preserve the alveolar ridge contour. Although ARP is a clinically validated and safe approach, in certain clinical scenarios, the additional clinical benefit of ARP over unassisted socket healing has been debated and it appears that for some clinicians may represent an overtreatment. The aim of this critical review was to discuss the evidence pertaining to the four key objectives of ARP and to determine where ARP can lead to favorable outcomes when compared to unassisted socket healing.

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.

Do autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have a role in intra-oral bone regeneration? A critical review of clinical guidelines on decision-making process.

In the past decades, personalized regenerative medicine has gained increased attention. Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) such as PRP, PRGF, and L-PRF, all serving as a source of a large variety of cells and growth factors that participate in hard and soft tissue healing and regeneration, could play a significant role in regenerative periodontal procedures. This narrative review evaluated the relative impact of APCs in alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor augmentation, and the regeneration of bony craters around teeth, both as a single substitute or in combination with a xenograft. L-PRF has a significant beneficial effect on alveolar ridge preservation (bone quality). The data for PRGF are less convincing, and PRP is controversial. L-PRF can successfully be used as a single substitute during transcrestal (≥3.5 mm bone gain) as well as 1-stage lateral window sinus floor elevation (>5 mm bone gain). For PRGF and especially PRP the data are very scarce. In the treatment of bony craters around teeth, during open flap debridement, L-PRF as a single substitute showed significant adjunctive benefits (e.g., >PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >crater depth reduction). The data for PRP and PRGF were non-conclusive. Adding PRP or L-PRF to a xenograft during OFD resulted in additional improvements (>PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >bone fill), for PRGF no data were found. Autologous platelet concentrates demonstrated to enhance bone and soft tissue healing in periodontal regenerative procedures. The data for L-PRF were most convincing. L-PRF also has the advantage of a greater simplicity of production, and its 100% autologous character.

Influence of healing time on the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation using a collagenated bovine bone xenograft: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To evaluate the healing outcomes in non-molar post-extraction sockets filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral with collagen (DBBM-C) as a function of time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in need of non-molar tooth extraction were randomly allocated into one of three groups according to the total healing time (A-3 months; B-6 months; C-9 months). The effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy via socket filling using DBBM-C and socket sealing with a porcine collagen matrix (CM) was assessed based on a panel of clinical, digital, histomorphometric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients completed the study (n = 14 in each group). Histomorphometric analysis of bone core biopsies obtained at the time of implant placement showed a continuous increase in the proportion of mineralized tissue with respect to non-mineralized tissue, and a decrease in the proportion of remaining xenograft material over time. All volumetric bone and soft tissue contour assessments revealed a dimensional reduction of the alveolar ridge overtime affecting mainly the facial aspect. Linear regression analyses indicated that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of bone and soft tissue modelling. Ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement was needed in 16.7% of the sites (A:2; B:1; C:4). Patient-reported discomfort and wound healing index scores progressively decreased over time and was similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Healing time influences the proportion of tissue compartments in non-molar post-extraction sites filled with DBBM-C and sealed with a CM. A variable degree of alveolar ridge atrophy, affecting mainly the facial aspect, occurs even after performing ARP therapy. These changes are more pronounced in sites exhibiting thin facial bone (≤1 mm) at baseline (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03659617).

Bone preservation or augmentation simultaneous with or prior to dental implant placement: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and eighty-three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). CONCLUSION: Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three-dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported.

Bone preservation or augmentation simultaneous with or prior to dental implant placement: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and eighty-three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). CONCLUSION: Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three-dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported.