Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36477662›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Bone envelope for implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kai R Fischer, Alex Solderer, Kristina Arlt, Christian Heumann, Chun Ching Liu, Patrick R Schmidlin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kai R Fischer *Clinic of Conservative & Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology & Peri-Implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. kai.fischer@zzm.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-8632-3879
Alex Solderer *Clinic of Conservative & Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology & Peri-Implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kristina ArltClinic of Conservative & Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology & Peri-Implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christian HeumannDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.
Chun Ching LiuClinic of Conservative & Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology & Peri-Implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Patrick R SchmidlinClinic of Conservative & Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology & Peri-Implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the dimensional establishment of a bony envelope after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in order to estimate the surgical feasibility of standard diameter implants placement without any additional augmentation methods.

methodsPubMed, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched for suitable titles and abstracts using PICO elements. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising at least ten systemically healthy patients; test groups comprised placement of (collagenated) DBBM w/o membrane and control groups of no grafting, respectively. Selected abstracts were checked regarding their suitability, followed by full-text screening and subsequent statistical data analysis. Probabilities and number needed to treat (NNT) for implant placement without any further need of bone graft were calculated.

resultsThe initial database search identified 2583 studies. Finally, nine studies with a total of 177 implants placed after ARP with DBBM and 130 implants after SH were included for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation. A mean difference of 1.13 mm in ridge width in favour of ARP with DBBM could be calculated throughout all included studies (95% CI 0.28-1.98, t2 = 1-1063, I2 = 68.0%, p < 0.01). Probabilities for implant placement with 2 mm surrounding bone requiring theoretically no further bone augmentation ranged from 6 to 19% depending on implant diameter (3.25: 19%, RD = 0.19, C = 0.06-0.32, p < 0.01/4.0: 14%, RD = 0.14, C = 0.05-0.23, p < 0.01/5.0: 6%, RD = 0.06, C = 0.00-0.12, p = 0.06).

conclusionARP employing DBBM reduces ridge shrinkage on average by 1.13 mm and improves the possibility to place standard diameter implants with up to 2 mm circumferential bone housing; however, no ARP would have been necessary or additional augmentative bone interventions are still required in 4 out of 5 cases.

Indexed as

Health StatusActihaemylAlveolar ProcessAlveolar Ridge AugmentationAnimalsBone ResorptionCattleDental ImplantsHumansActihaemylDental Implantsdeproteinized calf blood serumAlveolar ridge preservationDental implantDeproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM)Extraction socketGuided bone regeneration (GBR)Socket healing

Identifiers

PMID36477662
PMCPMC9729513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.