Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Histological Findings for Socket Preservation Techniques Using Different Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective: Socket preservation techniques have been used to maintain the ridge dimension following tooth extraction. The materials used influence the quality and quantity of newly formed bone. Therefore, the aim of this article was to systematically review the literature reporting both histological and radiographic outcomes of socket preservation techniques after tooth extraction in human subjects.

Material and method: A systematic electronic search was performed in the electronic databases. English language clinical studies that were published between 2017 and 2022 and included both histological and radiographic findings for the test and control groups. Our primary search produced 848 articles, and of these, 215 were duplicate studies. A total of 72 articles were then eligible for full-text reading.

Results: The review included eight studies that met its inclusion criteria. Three outcomes were compared in the included studies. The percentage of newly formed bone ranged from 21.34 ± 9.14% to more than 50% of new bone formation. The materials that showed more than 50% of newly formed bone formation were demineralized dentin graft, platelet-rich fibrin, freeze-dried bone allograft, corticocancellous porcine, and autogenous bone. Four Studies did not report the percentage of the residual graft materials, while those who reported showed a variable range of a minimum 1.5% to more than 25%. One study did not report the changes in horizontal width at the follow-up period, while other studies ranged from 0.6 mm to 10 mm.

Conclusion: Socket preservation represents an efficient technique to preserve the ridge contour with satisfactory newly formed bone in the augmented site and maintaining the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the ridge.

Keywords: CBCT; bone graft; computer tomography; histology; histomorphometric; radiology; socket preservation.

Figure 1

Diagram showing the reason for articles exclusion.

Figure 2

PRISMA displays the search strategy and the screening process leading to the selection of the included eleven trials.

Figure 3

Bias analysis chart. Elfana et al. 2021 [30], Castro et al., 2021 [31], Saito et al.,2021 [32], Dhamija et al., 2020 [33], Dwivedi et al., 2020 [34], Jung et al., 2018 [35], Zhang et al., 2017 [36], and Nart et al., 2017 [37].