Is ridge preservation/augmentation at periodontally compromised extraction sockets safe? A retrospective study

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 44; no. 10; pp. 1051 - 1058
• Main Authors: Kim, Jung‐Ju, Ben Amara, Heithem, Schwarz, Frank, Kim, Hae‐Young, Lee, Jung‐Won, Wikesjö, Ulf M. E., Koo, Ki‐Tae
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-10-2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; alveolar bone grafting; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; Dentistry; Female; Humans; infection; Infections; Inflammation; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Periodontal Diseases - surgery; Periodontitis; Preservation; Retrospective Studies; Teeth; Tooth Extraction; tooth socket; Tooth Socket - surgery; Treatment Outcome; retrospective studies; infection; alveolar bone grafting; tooth extraction; tooth socket
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12764

Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the safety of ridge preservation/augmentation procedures when performed at compromised extraction sockets.
Methods
Patients subject to ridge preservation/augmentation at periodontally compromised sockets at Seoul National University Dental Hospital (SNUDH) were evaluated in a chart review. Tooth extractions due to acute infection were not included in our study as chronically formed lesions are the only lesions that can be detected from radiographic images. If inflammatory symptoms persisted following ridge preservation/augmentation and antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory therapy, the patient was categorized as a re‐infection case and implanted biomaterial removed.
Results
Of 10,060 patients subject to tooth extractions at SNUDH, 2011 through 2015, 297 cases meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed. The severity and type of lesions were not specific because extracting data was only done by radiographic images and chart records. The review identified eight patients exhibiting inflammatory symptoms that required additional antimicrobial and anti‐inflammatory therapy. Within this group, re‐infection occurred in two patients requiring biomaterials removal. The final safety rate for the ridge preservation/augmentation was 99.3%. None of the demographic factors, systemic conditions or choice of biomaterial affected the safety of ridge preservation/augmentation.
Conclusion
Alveolar ridge preservation/augmentation at periodontally compromised sockets appears safe following thorough removal of infectious source.