The Effect of Different Socket Types on Implant Therapy While Using Flapless Ridge Preservation
1
Department of Dentistry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi 613, Taiwan
2
Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Chiayi 613, Taiwan
3
Cheng’s Dental Office, Pingtung 900, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(3), 970; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030970
Submission received: 30 November 2020
/
Revised: 13 January 2021
/
Accepted: 19 January 2021
/
Published: 21 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Predictable Restorative Dentistry)
Abstract
:Featured Application
Considering socket types in flapless ridge preservation may improve implant therapy.
Abstract
This retrospective study compared the effects of different extraction sockets when using flapless ridge preservation during dental implant therapy. The extraction sockets were divided into four groups: Class I, intact soft tissue wall and bone walls; Class II, intact soft tissue wall with the destruction of at least one bone wall; Class III, the recession of all soft tissue walls by ≤5 mm; and Class IV, the recession of at least one soft tissue wall by >5 mm. We compared clinical parameters of dental implant therapy using flapless ridge preservation among these groups. Seventy patients with 92 dental implants, including 53 maxillary and 39 mandibular implants, involving flapless ridge preservation were enrolled. The implant survival rate was not affected by socket morphology. Total treatment time from extraction to final prosthesis placement was significantly longer in Class II and III than in Class I, among the maxillary sockets. However, there was no significant difference in the total treatment time among the different groups in the mandible. Therefore, implant survival rates did not differ according to socket morphology; however, total treatment time was significantly affected by socket morphology in the maxilla and was longer in socket classes associated with periodontitis.
1. Introduction
Alveolar ridge resorption occurs rapidly during the first 6 months after extraction, resulting in aesthetic, phonetic, and functional problems, and complicates implant placement [1,2]. Thin buccal plates undergo progressive bone resorption, even when a ridge preservation method is used [3,4]. Although ridge preservation is useful for decreasing post-extraction alveolar ridge contraction, it cannot eliminate ridge resorption after tooth extraction [5,6]. Ridges with damaged extraction socket walls benefit more from alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) than ridges with intact extraction sockets [7].
Various methods are used in ARP, including closed (flapless procedure) and open (flap procedure) approaches [8,9]. There is no significant histological difference between flapped and flapless groups; thus, the percentage of new bone, connective tissue, and residual bone graft is similar between these two groups [10]. However, more buccal bone resorption is found in extraction sockets with full-thickness flap elevation, which would disturb the surrounding periosteum [9,11,12,13]. The flapless procedure is less traumatic and results in more keratinized tissue than the flap procedure [8,9,14]. Flapless ridge preservation is made possible either by rapid formation of a biological seal under a non-resorbable membrane or substitution of a resorbable barrier by a connective matrix [9,10,15]. Moreover, soft tissue grafts or primary closure did not provide beneficial effects in preserving alveolar bone in previous studies [16,17,18]. Therefore, a simplified flapless procedure is desirable for both patients and surgeons.
A buccal wall thickness >1.0 mm in a socket has been reported to show better ridge preservation outcomes than achieved with a thinner buccal wall [5]. In a previous animal study, the final alveolar ridge profile of sockets with buccal plate destruction was more favorable after using flapless ridge preservation than after natural healing [19,20,21]. Additionally, in extraction sockets of maxillary anterior teeth with buccal plate dehiscence or with sockets of molars with deficient bone plates, flapless ridge preservation could minimize ridge resorption after tooth extraction and improve soft tissue outcomes [22,23,24,25,26]. Thus, buccal plate loss is a predictor of alveolar ridge-remodeling when flapless ridge preservation is used [27].
Though there are a few studies that have focused on the association between ridge preservation and socket morphology [28,29,30], none have analyzed the relationship between dental implant treatment and flapless ridge preservation in the different socket types with distinct hard and soft tissue characteristics. We hypothesized that there would be differences in clinical parameters of implant therapy among the different socket types when flapless ridge preservation is used. Thus, the aim of this retrospective study was to compare the effects of the different extraction socket types on various parameters of dental implant therapy when flapless ridge preservation is used.
2. Materials and Methods
This was a retrospective study involving adults who underwent flapless ridge preservation and dental implant insertion between January 2013 and August 2019 by a single surgeon (L.C.C). Implant sites were excluded if final prosthesis placement was not completed before this study commenced. The retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013. The protocol was approved by Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 201901611B0) and the need to obtain informed patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
2.1. Classification of Extraction Sockets
The extraction sockets were divided into different groups according to the authors’ socket classification system, which was modified from Elian et al.’s classification of extraction sockets of anterior teeth [31]. Chang’s classification system was based on the severity of tissue destruction of the extraction socket walls, including buccal, palatal/lingual, mesial, and distal walls, as shown in Figure 1.
Class I: intact soft tissue walls and bone walls
Class II: intact soft tissue walls, but the destruction of at least one bone wall in the socket
Class III: recession of all soft tissue walls by ≤5 mm
Class IV: recession of at least one soft tissue wall by >5 mm.
2.2. Surgical Procedures
In the selected cases, the flapless ridge preservation procedures had been performed in indicated sites with the following steps: (1) atraumatic tooth extraction and wound debridement; (2) bone grafting to the soft tissue wall margin; (3) coronal seal and suturing. Three treatment groups were defined according to the materials used. In Group A, bovine xenograft (Bio-Oss, Geistlich Biomaterials, Princeton, NJ, USA) was placed in the socket, a collagen plug was used as a coronal seal (Teruplug, Olympus Terumo Biomaterials, Tokyo, Japan), and a resorbable suture (4-0 Vicryl, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) was placed. In Group B1, Bio-Oss combined with allograft material (OraGraft, LifeNet, Virginia Beach, VA, USA), porcine collagen membrane (Sunmax collagen dental membrane, Sunmaxbiotech Co. Ltd., Tainan, Taiwan), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) suture (ACE sutures, ACE Surgical Supply Co, Brockton, MA, USA) were used. In Group B2, porcine xenograft material (Miner-Oss XP®, BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), porcine collagen membrane (Sunmax), and PTFE suture (ACE) were used. After tooth extraction, antibiotics and analgesics were used for 7 days. After at least 3 months of healing, the dental implant body was placed into the grafted sites using a two-stage implant system (Osseotite Taper Certain Implant, Biomet 3i LLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA).
2.3. Patient Characteristics and Parameters of Implant Sites
We analyzed the basic characteristics of the patients and parameters of implant sites according to socket classification. The characteristics of the patients included sex, age, systemic diseases, and smoking status. The parameters of implant sites included the location (molar vs. non-molar), aetiology of extraction (periodontal disease vs. non-periodontal disease), implant insertion torque as reference for primary stability (N/cm), bone density (according to Misch classification based on the clinician’s tactile sensation while drilling) [32], implant survival rate, and total treatment time (the period between extraction and final prosthesis placement).
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Continuous data for the age at extraction and age at dental implant placement were expressed as means with standard deviation. The differences in age at extraction and age at dental implant placement among the four-socket classes were assessed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among the groups, post-hoc tests were used for the comparisons of each pair of groups, with Bonferroni correction. The continuous data for the period from extraction to stage I implant placement surgery, the period from stage I surgery to final prosthesis placement, and total treatment time had skewed distributions. Thus, these data were expressed as medians with inter-quartile range, and the differences among the four-socket groups were assessed by the non-parametric Kruskal‒Wallis test. When these tests revealed significant differences, non-parametric Mann‒Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare each pair of groups. Categorical data were expressed as counts with percentage, and Fisher’s exact tests were performed to evaluate their associations with socket classification. The Z test was performed to compare proportions in each pair of groups.
To find independent factors influencing total treatment time, univariable and multivariable general linear models were used. Variables showing statistical significance in univariable models were entered into the final multivariable model according to stepwise selection. The estimated differences and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of the general linear models are presented.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). A two-tailed p-value < 0.05 represented statistical significance.
3. Results
In this study, 70 patients with 92 dental implants that used flapless ridge preservation were enrolled. The 92 dental implants included 53 maxillary implants and 39 mandibular implants.
3.1. Maxillary Implants
The association of the baseline conditions and extraction socket classification of the 53 maxillary implants is presented in Table 1. No significant difference was observed among the four-socket classes (I–IV) in terms of age at dental implant placement, age at extraction (year), smoking habits, and systemic diseases. Sex was significantly associated with socket classification (p = 0.008): the proportion of males in the Class III socket group was significantly higher than that in the Class I socket group (78.6% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.003).
The association of the socket classification and implant site development for the maxillary teeth is presented in Table 2. Socket classification was significantly associated with the materials and methods used (p = 0.008): the proportion of Class IV sockets prepared by method B2 was significantly higher than that of Class III sockets (66.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001). Socket classification was also significantly associated with extraction aetiology (p < 0.001): the proportion of cases that had periodontitis as aetiology was significantly higher in Class III sockets than in Class I and II sockets (82.1% vs. 16.7% and 31.3%, both p = 0.001). Socket classification was significantly associated with total treatment time (p = 0.004): among the four groups, implants placed in Class III sockets had the longest total treatment time (median of 19.0 months), followed by those placed in Class II sockets (median of 15.9 months). Implants placed in the above two classes of sockets needed significantly longer treatment time than those placed in Class IV sockets (medians of 19.0 and 15.9 months, respectively, vs. 14.0 months, with p = 0.008 and 0.007, respectively, by the non-parametric Mann‒Whitney test). No significant association of socket classification with implant site (upper molar [UM]/non-UM regions), bone density, bone re-grafting, primary stability, implant survival, the period from extraction to stage I surgery, and the period from stage I surgery to final prosthesis placement was observed.
3.2. Mandibular Implants
The associations of the baseline conditions and socket classification for the 39 mandibular teeth are presented in Table 3. No significant difference was observed among the four-socket classes for all baseline conditions (all p-values > 0.05), including age at dental implant placement, age at extraction, sex, smoking habits, and systemic diseases.
The associations of the socket classification and implant site development for the mandibular implants are presented in Table 4. Socket classification was significantly associated with bone re-grafting (p = 0.041), the materials and methods used (p = 0.001), and extraction aetiology (p = 0.010). Class II sockets required significantly more bone re-grafting than Class I sockets (92.9% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.005). Method A was used for almost all Class I‒III sockets (100%, 92.9%, 87.5%, respectively), but all Class IV sockets (n = 3) underwent method B1. In terms of extraction aetiology, periodontitis was involved in 28.6%, 56.3%, and 100% of Class II, III, and IV sockets, respectively, while none of the six Class I sockets had a periodontitis extraction aetiology. No significant association of socket classification with implant site (UM/non-UM), bone density, primary stability, implant survival, the period from extraction to stage I, the period from stage I to final prosthesis placement, and the total treatment time was observed.
3.3. Independent Factors Influencing Total Treatment Time
According to univariate analyses (Table 5), total treatment time was not significantly associated with subjects’ age, sex, smoking habits, systematic diseases, bone re-grafting, and materials and methods used in dental surgery. The implant sites in the UM region, and the upper anterior and premolar (non-UM) regions had significantly longer treatment time than those in the lower anterior and premolar (non-lower molar [LM]) regions, with estimated differences of 4.72 (p < 0.001) and 6.06 (p = 0.001) months. Sites with a bone density of D2‒D3 had a significantly shorter treatment time than those with a bone density of D4, with an estimated difference of −2.77 months (p = 0.004). Sites with an extraction aetiology of periodontitis had a significantly longer treatment time than those without periodontitis, with an estimated difference of 2.63 months (p = 0.003). Sites with primary stability of >35 N/cm had significantly shorter treatment times than those with primary stability of <20 N/cm, with an estimated difference of −2.86 months (p = 0.033). Class III sockets had a longer treatment time than Class I sockets, with an estimated difference of 3.09 months (p = 0.024).
To determine whether the above five factors (implant site, bone density, primary stability, extraction aetiology, and socket classification) had an independent influence on the total treatment time, they were included in a model by stepwise selection. The final multivariable model contained two factors: implant site and extraction aetiology (Table 5); i.e., tooth site and extraction aetiology had independent and significant influences on total treatment time. At the same implant site, if the extraction aetiology was periodontitis, a significantly longer treatment time was required than without periodontitis, with an estimated difference of 2.08 months (p = 0.006). With the extraction aetiology, UM and non-UM regions required significantly longer treatment time than non-LM regions, with an estimated difference of 4.06 (p = 0.003) and 5.82 (p < 0.001) months, respectively.
4. Discussion
4.1. Major Findings
In this study, we investigated the effect of socket morphology on dental implant therapy with flapless ridge preservation. The implant survival rate was not affected by socket morphology in this study. However, the total treatment time was longer in socket types associated with periodontitis. Significantly longer treatment time was required in Class II and Class III sockets than in Class I sockets, in the maxilla. However, there was no significant difference in total treatment time among the different socket classes in the mandible. Therefore, total treatment time may be affected by several factors unrelated to treatment techniques, including patient factors or delay in final prosthesis placement. However, socket characteristics may affect the total treatment time indirectly, through its effect on primary stability and osseointegration time.
4.2. Treatment Flowchart
A flowchart of the treatment performed according to the condition of the extraction site and the socket morphology is shown in Figure 2. This classification system is simple and easily implementable by clinicians. Many factors need to be considered when making decisions about socket management after tooth extraction: systemic diseases, infection, primary stability, hard and soft tissue destruction of the socket, the thickness of the buccal wall, soft tissue phenotype, aesthetics, and pathological/physiological processes associated with wound healing [28,29,30,33]. Signs of infection at the extraction site include abscess, sinus tract, and pus drainage. Tooth abscesses could affect alveolar ridge remodeling [27] and infection could lead to poor healing outcomes when using flapless ridge preservation [33,34]. Therefore, flapless ridge preservation is not indicated in cases with infected sockets. There are other treatment options that could be chosen according to the primary stability and aesthetic demand in Class I sockets. If primary stability could be gained by placing implants into the native bone (as ascertained from a CT scan), then immediate implantation may be suggested.
A critical size defect is defined as an osseous defect that fails to heal spontaneously. Therefore, ridge preservation or ridge augmentation is suggested for a Class I socket size with a diameter greater than 10 × 10 mm2 because of poor bone repair [35,36]. Additionally, when an extraction socket is close to the maxillary sinus, ridge preservation could be used to reduce sinus pneumatization and alveolar bone resorption [37,38].
Severe soft- and hard-tissue loss is characteristic of Class IV sockets, which induces poor space maintenance. It may be recommended that a collagen plug is placed into the extraction socket to avoid soft tissue wall collapse. Rather than using flapless ridge preservation, performing ridge augmentation (ridge contouring) after the soft tissue has healed would be preferable for such large defects.
Each socket should be managed individually due to the complexity of the defect [29]. Furthermore, multiple root sockets of molars should be treated individually, based on the tissue loss of the area. For example, ridge preservation is necessary for mesial root sockets without a buccal plate, but natural healing is preferred for distal root sockets with intact bone walls.
4.3. Factors Associated with Socket Class
Aetiologies of extraction can be divided into periodontal and non-periodontal diseases. The total treatment time was found to be longer in extraction sockets associated with periodontitis in this study. It may be because periodontitis results in hard and soft tissue destruction, such as seen in Class III and Class IV sockets. Additionally, the post-extraction healing in periodontally affected sockets is slow, complicated, and unpredictable [39]. Bone density is usually less in the maxilla than in the mandible; therefore, it takes longer for high-quality bone regeneration in the maxilla. However, ridge preservation or augmentation still has positive effects in periodontally compromised sockets, as compared to natural healing [26,34]. Class II, III, and IV sockets had at least one bone wall with resorption; however, soft tissue walls could provide space for bone grafting in flapless ridge preservation [40]. Additionally, there was no significant difference in bone density distribution and implant insertion torque among the four-socket classes. Total treatment time is longer for maxillary implants than for mandibular implants. In addition, our study showed that a longer treatment time is associated with periodontal destruction of the socket. Increased bone destruction and, especially, greater soft-tissue recession in these sockets would decrease space maintenance and the potential for bone regeneration. However, there was no significant difference in the total treatment time among the different socket types in the mandible in the present study.
4.4. Materials
A few types of coronal seal materials have been used to block infiltration of soft tissue into the lower bone graft area in flapless ridge preservation; these include membranes and collagen plugs [16,20,31,41]. Sockets have previously been sealed with a porcine collagen matrix, epithelial connective tissue grafts or membranes, and these approaches all yielded the desired outcomes [16,20,41,42,43]. Currently, leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin membrane is also used to seal post-extraction sockets [44]. Bio-Oss has been successfully used in oral surgery for a few decades, and, it could enhance alveolar ridge dimensions and bone formation in flapless ridge preservation procedure [45]. Most of the key physiochemical characteristics of the porcine-derived grafting material are similar to those of Bio-Oss [46]. Additionally, there are similarities between pigs and humans in terms of physiology and bone biology [47]. MinerOss XP® is a highly porous anorganic porcine-derived bone mineral matrix with a particle size between 0.25 and 1.0 mm [43]. Ridge preservation with porcine xenograft results in histomorphometric outcomes, physicochemical characteristics, and dimensional stability that are comparable to those obtained with bovine xenografts [48,49]. Therefore, we used different xenografts in this study, instead of autografts. There was no significant difference in the total treatment time among the sockets prepared using the three different materials and methods.
4.5. Implant Survival Rate
There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of a ridge protection procedure in conjunction with dental implant treatment to improve treatment outcomes [6,50]. In this study, the average implant survival rate was 95.7% at implant level and 94.3% at the patient level. The lowest survival rate was 85.7% (two failed implants) in mandibular Class II sockets. One implant failed in a patient with end-stage renal disease under peritoneal dialysis; this patient’s poor systemic condition may have reduced bone regeneration. Another implant failed because of a residual root tip-like substance in the implant site, which was found upon removal of the failed implant. When combined with proper case selection, flapless ridge preservation is a simple and predictable treatment for implant site development in different socket morphologies.
4.6. Limitations of the Study
A major limitation of this retrospective study was the small and unbalanced sample sizes of the different socket classes. There were intact soft tissue and bone walls in Class I sockets, which decreased the need for flapless ridge preservation. Flapless ridge preservation was typically not indicated for Class IV defects with severe soft tissue and hard tissue destruction. Consequently, there were fewer cases in Class I and Class IV than in Classes II and III. The use of different materials and short-term follow-up were also limitations of this retrospective study. Therefore, it is necessary to identify other factors, such as different materials and methods, associated with socket morphology in a larger and longer clinical trial.
5. Conclusions
Implant survival rate was not affected by socket class when flapless ridge preservation was performed after proper case selection. However, poor socket morphology would extend the total treatment time between extraction and final prosthesis placement, especially in the maxilla. The total treatment time was longer in extraction sockets associated with periodontitis. Furthermore, future clinical trials should be able to establish other factors associated with socket morphology while using flapless ridge preservation in implant therapy.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.-C.C.; methodology, L.-C.C.; software, L.-C.C.; validation, L.-C.C.; formal analysis, L.-C.C.; investigation, L.-C.C.; resources, L.-C.C.; data curation, L.-C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.-C.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.-M.C.; visualization, Y.-M.C.; supervision, L.-C.C.; project administration, L.-C.C.; funding acquisition, none. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (IRB No. 201901611B0 and date of approval: 2019/11/4).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Hammerle, C.H.; Araujo, M.G.; Simion, M.; Osteology Consensus Group. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 80–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, W.L.; Wong, T.L.; Wong, M.C.; Lang, N.P. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chappuis, V.; Araujo, M.G.; Buser, D. Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontology 2000 2017, 73, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avila-Ortiz, G.; Chambrone, L.; Vignoletti, F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Avila-Ortiz, G.; Elangovan, S.; Kramer, K.W.; Blanchette, D.; Dawson, D.V. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 950–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horvath, A.; Mardas, N.; Mezzomo, L.A.; Needleman, I.G.; Donos, N. Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 341–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassir, S.H.; Alhareky, M.; Wangsrimongkol, B.; Jia, Y.; Karimbux, N. Systematic review and meta-analysis of hard tissue outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 979–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.; Lee, J.B.; Koo, K.T.; Seol, Y.J.; Lee, Y.M. Flap management in alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barone, A.; Toti, P.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G.; Derchi, G.; Covani, U. Extraction socket healing in humans after ridge preservation techniques: Comparison between flapless and flapped procedures in a randomized clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2014, 85, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barone, A.; Borgia, V.; Covani, U.; Ricci, M.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G. Flap versus flapless procedure for ridge preservation in alveolar extraction sockets: A histological evaluation in a randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 806–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fickl, S.; Zuhr, O.; Wachtel, H.; Bolz, W.; Huerzeler, M. Tissue alterations after tooth extraction with and without surgical trauma: A volumetric study in the beagle dog. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wood, D.L.; Hoag, P.M.; Donnenfeld, O.W.; Rosenfeld, L.D. Alveolar crest reduction following full and partial thickness flaps. J. Periodontol. 1972, 43, 141–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hughes, F.J.; Turner, W.; Belibasakis, G.; Martuscelli, G. Effects of growth factors and cytokines on osteoblast differentiation. Periodontology 2000 2006, 41, 48–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barone, A.; Ricci, M.; Tonelli, P.; Santini, S.; Covani, U. Tissue changes of extraction sockets in humans: A comparison of spontaneous healing vs. ridge preservation with secondary soft tissue healing. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurito, D.; Cugnetto, R.; Lollobrigida, M.; Guerra, F.; Vestri, A.; Gianno, F.; Bosco, S.; Lamazza, L.; De Biase, A. Socket preservation with d-PTFE membrane: Histologic analysis of new formed matrix at membrane removal. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2016, 36, 877–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Y.K.; Yun, P.Y.; Lee, H.J.; Ahn, J.Y.; Kim, S.G. Ridge preservation of the molar extraction socket using collagen sponge and xenogeneic bone grafts. Implant. Dent. 2011, 20, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.E.; Lang, N.P. Ridge preservation after tooth extraction. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotsakis, G.; Chrepa, V.; Marcou, N.; Prasad, H.; Hinrichs, J. Flapless alveolar ridge preservation utilizing the “socket-plug” technique: Clinical technique and review of the literature. J. Oral Implant. 2014, 40, 690–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naenni, N.; Bienz, S.P.; Jung, R.E.; Hammerle, C.H.F.; Thoma, D.S. Histologic analyses of flapless ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two alloplastic bone graft substitutes. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 3589–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naenni, N.; Sapata, V.; Bienz, S.P.; Leventis, M.; Jung, R.E.; Hammerle, C.H.F.; Thoma, D.S. Effect of flapless ridge preservation with two different alloplastic materials in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects-volumetric and linear changes. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 2187–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Okada, M.; Matsuura, T.; Akizuki, T.; Hoshi, S.; Shujaa Addin, A.; Fukuba, S.; Izumi, Y. Ridge preservation of extraction sockets with buccal bone deficiency using poly lactide-co-glycolide coated beta-tricalcium phosphate bone grafts: An experimental study in dogs. J. Periodontol. 2019, 90, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barone, A.; Ricci, M.; Romanos, G.E.; Tonelli, P.; Alfonsi, F.; Covani, U. Buccal bone deficiency in fresh extraction sockets: A prospective single cohort study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hingsammer, L.; Pommer, B.; Furhauser, R.; Mailath-Pokorny, G.; Haas, R.; Busenlechner, D. Single tooth implants in the esthetic zone following a two-stage all flapless approach: A retrospective analysis. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 929–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Natto, Z.S.; Parashis, A.; Steffensen, B.; Ganguly, R.; Finkelman, M.D.; Jeong, Y.N. Efficacy of collagen matrix seal and collagen sponge on ridge preservation in combination with bone allograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan-Chu, J.H.; Tuminelli, F.J.; Kurtz, K.S.; Tarnow, D.P. Analysis of buccolingual dimensional changes of the extraction socket using the “ice cream cone” flapless grafting technique. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2014, 34, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, L.; Xu, T.; Hu, W.; Chung, K.H. Preservation and augmentation of molar extraction sites affected by severe bone defect due to advanced periodontitis: A prospective clinical trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosyn, J.; Cleymaet, R.; De Bruyn, H. Predictors of alveolar process remodeling following ridge preservation in high-risk patients. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Yafi, F.; Alchawaf, B.; Nelson, K. What is the optimum for alveolar ridge preservation? Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 63, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spagnoli, D.B.; Niquette, C.C., Jr. Reconstruction of the extraction socket: Methods, manipulations, and management. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 32, 593–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalsi, A.S.; Kalsi, J.S.; Bassi, S. Alveolar ridge preservation: Why, when and how. Br. Dent. J. 2019, 227, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elian, N.; Cho, S.C.; Froum, S.; Smith, R.B.; Tarnow, D.P. A simplified socket classification and repair technique. Pr. Proced. Aesthet. Dent. 2007, 19, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
- Misch, C.E. Density of bone: Effect on treatment planning, surgical approach, and healing. In Contemporary Implant Dentistry; Misch, C.E., Ed.; Mosby: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1993; pp. 469–485. [Google Scholar]
- Tonetti, M.S.; Jung, R.E.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Blanco, J.; Cosyn, J.; Fickl, S.; Figuero, E.; Goldstein, M.; Graziani, F.; Madianos, P.; et al. Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.J.; Ben Amara, H.; Schwarz, F.; Kim, H.Y.; Lee, J.W.; Wikesjo, U.M.; Koo, K.T. Is ridge preservation/augmentation at periodontally compromised extraction sockets safe? A retrospective study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 1051–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, G.; Li, Z.; Wan, Q.; Lv, K.; Li, D.; Xing, X.; Li, Z. A novel animal model treated with tooth extraction to repair the full-thickness defects in the mandible of rabbits. J. Surg. Res. 2015, 194, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlegel, K.A.; Lang, F.J.; Donath, K.; Kulow, J.T.; Wiltfang, J. The monocortical critical size bone defect as an alternative experimental model in testing bone substitute materials. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 102, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levi, I.; Halperin-Sternfeld, M.; Horwitz, J.; Zigdon-Giladi, H.; Machtei, E.E. Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus following tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla with and without socket preservation. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 952–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, T.; Bernardello, F.; Berton, F.; Porrelli, D.; Rapani, A.; Camurri Piloni, A.; Fiorillo, L.; Di Lenarda, R.; Stacchi, C. Efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation after maxillary molar extraction in reducing crestal bone resorption and sinus pneumatization: A multicenter prospective case-control study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 9352130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahn, J.J.; Shin, H.I. Bone tissue formation in extraction sockets from sites with advanced periodontal disease: A histomorphometric study in humans. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008, 23, 1133–1138. [Google Scholar]
- Zucchelli, G.; Mazzotti, C.; Tirone, F.; Mele, M.; Bellone, P.; Mounssif, I. The connective tissue graft wall technique and enamel matrix derivative to improve root coverage and clinical attachment levels in Miller Class IV gingival recession. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2014, 34, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Papi, P.; Di Murro, B.; Tromba, M.; Passarelli, P.C.; D’Addona, A.; Pompa, G. The use of a non-absorbable membrane as an occlusive barrier for alveolar ridge preservation: A one year follow-up prospective cohort study. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meloni, S.M.; Tallarico, M.; Lolli, F.M.; Deledda, A.; Pisano, M.; Jovanovic, S.A. Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix. 1-year results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2015, 8, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Guarnieri, R.; Stefanelli, L.; De Angelis, F.; Mencio, F.; Pompa, G.; Di Carlo, S. Extraction socket preservation using porcine-derived collagen membrane alone or associated with porcine-derived bone. Clinical results of randomized controlled study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Res. 2017, 8, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Serafini, G.; Lollobrigida, M.; Fortunato, L.; Mazzucchi, G.; Lamazza, L.; Di Nardo, D.; Vozza, I.; Riminucci, M.; De Biase, A. Postextractive alveolar ridge preservation using L-PRF: Clinical and histological evaluation. Case Rep. Dent. 2020, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Barros, R.R.M.; Novaes, A.B., Jr.; de Carvalho, J.P.; de Almeida, A.L.G. The effect of a flapless alveolar ridge preservation procedure with or without a xenograft on buccal bone crest remodeling compared by histomorphometric and microcomputed tomographic analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.H.; Yi, G.S.; Lee, J.W.; Kim, D.J. Physicochemical characterization of porcine bone-derived grafting material and comparison with bovine xenografts for dental applications. J. Periodontal. Implant. Sci. 2017, 47, 388–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mardas, N.; Dereka, X.; Donos, N.; Dard, M. Experimental model for bone regeneration in oral and cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. J. Investig. Surg. 2014, 27, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuliani, A.; Iezzi, G.; Mazzoni, S.; Piattelli, A.; Perrotti, V.; Barone, A. Regenerative properties of collagenated porcine bone grafts in human maxilla: Demonstrative study of the kinetics by synchrotron radiation microtomography and light microscopy. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, V.J.; Michalek, J.E.; Liu, Q.; Mealey, B.L. Ridge preservation following tooth extraction using bovine xenograft compared with porcine xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2020, 91, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassim, B.; Ivanovski, S.; Mattheos, N. Current perspectives on the role of ridge (socket) preservation procedures in dental implant treatment in the aesthetic zone. Aust. Dent. J. 2014, 59, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
Chang’s classification of extraction sockets is based primarily on the extent of destruction to the walls: (a) Class I: intact soft tissue walls and hard tissue walls; (b) Class II: intact soft tissue wall, but the destruction of at least one bone wall in the socket; (c) Class III: recession of all soft tissue walls by ≤5 mm; and (d) Class IV defect: soft tissue recession > 5mm (figures provided by Dr. Fred Cheng).
Figure 1.
Chang’s classification of extraction sockets is based primarily on the extent of destruction to the walls: (a) Class I: intact soft tissue walls and hard tissue walls; (b) Class II: intact soft tissue wall, but the destruction of at least one bone wall in the socket; (c) Class III: recession of all soft tissue walls by ≤5 mm; and (d) Class IV defect: soft tissue recession > 5mm (figures provided by Dr. Fred Cheng).
Figure 2.
Treatment flowchart of management for extraction socket depending on Chang’s classification.
Figure 2.
Treatment flowchart of management for extraction socket depending on Chang’s classification.
Table 1.
Association of patients’ characteristics and socket classification for maxillary implants with flapless ridge preservation.
Table 1.
Association of patients’ characteristics and socket classification for maxillary implants with flapless ridge preservation.
| Socket Classification | p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (n = 6) | II (n = 16) | III (n = 28) | IV (n = 3) | |||
| Age at dental implant (years) | 46.6 (13.4) | 50.8 (10.8) | 51.9 (10.0) | 61.6 (14.2) | 0.280 | |
| Age at extraction (years) | 46.3 (13.4) | 50.5 (10.8) | 51.5 (10.0) | 61.2 (14.3) | 0.286 | |
| Sex | Female | 5 (83.3%) | 8 (50.0%) | 6 (21.4%) | 0 | 0.008 * |
| Male | 1 (16.7%) | 8 (50.0%) | 22 (78.6%) † | 3 (100.0%) | ||
| Smoking | Non-smoker | 5 (83.3%) | 14 (87.5%) | 18 (64.3%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0.283 |
| Former smoker | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (12.5%) | 10 (35.7%) | 0 | ||
| Systemic diseases | Healthy | 5 (83.3%) | 10 (62.5%) | 12 (42.9%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.075 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0 | 0 | 1 (3.6%) | 0 | ||
| Osteoporosis | 1 (16.7%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Other diseases | 0 | 6 (37.5%) | 15 (53.6%) | 2 (66.7%) | ||
* Indicates p < 0.05; a significant difference is observed among the four-socket classes I‒IV. † The male proportion with Class III is significantly higher than that with Class I (p = 0.003).
Table 2.
Association of socket classification and implant site development for maxillary implants with flapless ridge preservation.
Table 2.
Association of socket classification and implant site development for maxillary implants with flapless ridge preservation.
| Socket Classification | p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (n = 6) | II (n = 16) | III (n = 28) | IV (n = 3) | |||
| Implant site | UM | 1 (16.7%) | 4 (25.0%) | 14 (50.0%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0.191 |
| Non-UM | 5 (83.3%) | 12 (75.0%) | 14 (50.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Extraction aetiology | Periodontitis | 1 (16.7%) | 5 (31.3%) | 23 (82.1%) ‡ | 2 (66.7%) | <0.001 * |
| Non-periodontitis | 5 (83.3%) | 11 (68.8%) | 5 (17.9%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Materials and methods | A | 4 (66.7%) | 13 (81.3%) | 25 (89.3%) | 0 | 0.008 * |
| B1 | 0 | 1 (6.3%) | 2 (7.1%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| B2 | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (3.6%) | 2 (66.7%) † | ||
| Bone density | D1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.247 |
| D2‒D3 | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (12.5%) | 3 (10.7%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| D4 | 4 (66.7%) | 14 (87.5%) | 25 (89.3%) | 2 (66.7%) | ||
| Bone re-grafting | Yes | 4 (66.7%) | 10 (62.5%) | 18 (64.3%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0.786 |
| No | 2 (33.3%) | 6 (37.5%) | 10 (35.7%) | 0 | ||
| Primary stability | <20 N/cm | 1 (16.7%) | 3 (18.8%) | 6 (21.4%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.965 |
| 20‒35 N/cm | 3 (50.0%) | 5 (31.3%) | 8 (28.6%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| >35 N/cm | 2 (33.3%) | 8 (50.0%) | 14 (50.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Implant survival | Success | 6 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | 27 (96.4%) | 3 (100.0%) | >0.999 |
| Late failure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Early failure | 0 | 0 | 1 (3.6%) | 0 | ||
| Period from extraction to stage I surgery (months) | 3.3 (2.8, 4.0) | 3.6 (2.8, 4.1) | 4.1 (3.6, 5.8) | 3.2 (3.2, 6.0) | 0.085 | |
| Period from stage I surgery to final prosthesis placement (months) | 11.7 (9.7, 14.2) | 12.4 (10.8, 14.3) | 14.0 (11.0, 16.6) | 9.4 (8.2, 10.8) | 0.057 | |
| Total treatment time between extraction and final prosthesis placement (months) | 15.1 (13.6, 16.0) | 15.9 (14.8, 17.8) § | 19.0 (15.1, 21.5) § | 14.0 (12.5, 14.2) | 0.004 * | |
* Indicates p < 0.05 and a significant difference is observed among the four-socket classes I‒IV. † For materials and methods, the proportion of B2 in Class IV is significantly higher than that of B2 in Class III (p < 0.001). ‡ For extraction aetiology, the proportion of periodontitis in Class III is significantly higher than that in Class I and II (both p = 0.001). § The total treatment time for those with Class II and III is significantly longer than that for those with Class IV (p = 0.008 and 0.007). UM, upper molar.
Table 3.
Association of the baseline conditions and socket classification for mandibular implants with flapless ridge preservation.
Table 3.
Association of the baseline conditions and socket classification for mandibular implants with flapless ridge preservation.
| Socket Classification | p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (n = 6) | II (n = 14) | III (n = 16) | IV (n = 3) | |||
| Age at dental implant (years) | 54.0 (10.4) | 50.3 (10.7) | 52.9 (6.6) | 56.2 (11.0) | 0.688 | |
| Age at extraction (years) | 53.8 (10.4) | 50.0 (10.7) | 52.5 (6.6) | 55.5 (11.4) | 0.712 | |
| Sex | Female | 3 (50.0%) | 4 (28.6%) | 9 (56.3%) | 0 | 0.229 |
| Male | 3 (50.0%) | 10 (71.4%) | 7 (43.8%) | 3 (100.0%) | ||
| Smoking | Non-smoker | 4 (66.7%) | 9 (64.3%) | 13 (81.3%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0.688 |
| Former smoker | 2 (33.3%) | 5 (35.7%) | 3 (18.8%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Systemic diseases | Healthy | 2 (33.3%) | 8 (57.1%) | 7 (43.8%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.068 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0 | 0 | 1 (6.3%) | 2 (66.7%) | ||
| Osteoporosis | 1 (16.7%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Other diseases | 3 (50.0%) | 6 (42.9%) | 8 (50.0%) | 0 | ||
Table 4.
Association of socket classification and implant site development for mandibular implants with flapless ridge preservation.
Table 4.
Association of socket classification and implant site development for mandibular implants with flapless ridge preservation.
| Socket Classification | p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (n = 6) | II (n = 14) | III (n = 16) | IV (n = 3) | |||
| Implant site | LM | 4 (66.7%) | 10 (71.4%) | 11 (68.8%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0.861 |
| Non-LM | 2 (33.3%) | 4 (28.6%) | 5 (31.3%) | 0 | ||
| Extraction aetiology | Periodontitis | 0 | 4 (28.6%) | 9 (56.3%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0.010 * |
| Non-periodontitis | 6 (100.0%) | 10 (71.4%) | 7 (43.8%) | 0 | ||
| Materials and methods | A | 6 (100.0%) | 13 (92.9%) | 14 (87.5%) | 0 | 0.001 * |
| B1 | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 3 (100.0%) | ||
| B2 | 0 | 1 (7.1%) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Bone density | D1 | 0 | 0 | 1 (6.3%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.453 |
| D2‒D3 | 2 (33.3%) | 6 (42.9%) | 9 (56.3%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| D4 | 4 (66.7%) | 8 (57.1%) | 6 (37.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Bone re-grafting | Yes | 2 (33.3%) | 13 (92.9%) † | 12 (75.0%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0.041 * |
| No | 4 (66.7%) | 1 (7.1%) | 4 (25.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| Primary stability | <20 N | 0 | 0 | 1 (6.3%) | 0 | 0.475 |
| 20‒35 N | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (7.1%) | 4 (25.0%) | 0 | ||
| >35 N | 4 (66.7%) | 13 (92.9%) | 11 (68.8%) | 3 (100.0%) | ||
| Implant survival | Success | 6 (100.0%) | 12 (85.7%) | 15 (93.8%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0.649 |
| Late failure | 0 | 2 (14.3%) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Early failure | 0 | 0 | 1 (6.3%) | 0 | ||
| Period from extraction to stage I surgery (months) | 3.7 (1.8, 4.0) | 3.5 (2.8, 3.8) | 4.0 (3.0, 4.8) | 5.2 (4.7, 13.0) | 0.052 | |
| Period from stage I surgery to final prosthesis placement (months) | 8.6 (7.4, 11.6) | 8.4 (7.0, 9.5) | 8.9 (6.5, 9.8) | 9.8 (7.8, 10.7) | 0.716 | |
| Total treatment time between extraction and final prosthesis placement (months) | 13.1 (12.0, 13.4) | 12.2 (10.6, 12.8) | 13.1 (11.1, 14.1) | 15.9 (14.5, 20.8) | 0.086 | |
* Indicates p < 0.05; a significant difference is observed among the four socket classes I‒IV. † The proportion of bone re-grafting in Class II is significantly higher than that of Class I. DM, diabetes mellitus; LM, lower molar.
Table 5.
The independent factors influencing total treatment time.
| Univariable Linear Model | Multivariable Linear Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Difference (95% CI) | p-Value | Estimated Difference (95% CI) | p-Value | ||
| Age at dental implant (year) | 0.05 (−0.04, 0.13) | 0.304 | |||
| Age at extraction (year) | 0.04 (−0.04, 0.13) | 0.332 | |||
| Sex | Female | −0.60 (−2.42, 1.23) | 0.519 | ||
| Male | reference | ||||
| Smoking | Former smoker | 0.00 (−2.04, 2.03) | 0.997 | ||
| Non-smoker | reference | ||||
| Systemic diseases | DM | 1.71 (−2.69, 6.10) | 0.442 | ||
| Osteoporosis | 0.38 (−5.71, 6.47) | 0.901 | |||
| Other diseases | 1.12 (−0.72, 2.97) | 0.229 | |||
| NP | reference | ||||
| Tooth site | UM | 4.72 (2.02, 7.41) | 0.001 * | 4.06 (1.43, 6.69) | 0.003 * |
| non-UM | 6.06 (3.51, 8.61) | <0.001 * | 5.82 (3.36, 8.27) | <0.001 * | |
| LM | 1.18 (−1.41, 3.76) | 0.368 | 1.12 (−1.37, 3.60) | 0.374 | |
| non-LM | reference | reference | |||
| Bone density | D1 | −2.38 (−8.17, 3.42) | 0.417 | ||
| D2‒D3 | −2.77 (−4.65, −0.89) | 0.004 * | |||
| D4 | reference | ||||
| Bone re-grafting | Yes | −0.96 (−2.91, 0.98) | 0.327 | ||
| No | reference | ||||
| Materials and methods | A | reference | |||
| B1 | −0.08 (−3.05, 2.89) | 0.956 | |||
| B2 | −1.77 (−4.89, 1.36) | 0.265 | |||
| Extraction aetiology | Periodontitis | 2.63 (0.94, 4.31) | 0.003 * | 2.08 (0.61, 3.54): | 0.006 * |
| Non-periodontitis | reference | reference | |||
| Primary stability | <20 N | reference | |||
| 20‒35 N | −2.14 (−5.07, 0.80) | 0.151 | |||
| >35 N | −2.86 (−5.49, −0.24) | 0.033 * | |||
| Socket classification | I | reference | |||
| II | 0.94 (−1.85, 3.72) | 0.506 | |||
| III | 3.09 (0.43, 5.76) | 0.024 * | |||
| IV | 1.50 (−2.57, 5.57) | 0.466 | |||
DM, diabetes mellitus; UM, upper molar; LM, lower molar. * p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chang, L.-C.; Cheng, Y.-M. The Effect of Different Socket Types on Implant Therapy While Using Flapless Ridge Preservation. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030970
AMA Style
Chang L-C, Cheng Y-M. The Effect of Different Socket Types on Implant Therapy While Using Flapless Ridge Preservation. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(3):970. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030970
Chicago/Turabian StyleChang, Li-Ching, and Yu-Min Cheng. 2021. "The Effect of Different Socket Types on Implant Therapy While Using Flapless Ridge Preservation" Applied Sciences 11, no. 3: 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030970
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
