Skip to main content
Download PDF

Augmentation of single tooth extraction socket with deficient buccal walls using bovine xenograft with platelet-rich fibrin membrane

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 874 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Different techniques and materials such as bone grafts and bioactive agents have been used for alveolar ridge augmentation in extraction sockets with a defective wall, there is not a specific material or technique that has resulted in superior outcomes or prevented total bone loss.

Objectives

This clinical study aims to evaluate radiographically the effectiveness of using bovine xenograft with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane on vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge dimensional changes following tooth extraction that are complicated by buccal bone loss.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted in Egypt on fourteen patients with a single posterior tooth indicated for extraction. A preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan confirmed more than 50% loss in buccal bone in each tooth. Extraction sockets were packed with minced PRF clots mixed with a bovine xenograft. Each extraction socket was sealed by PRF membranes. CBCT scans, performed before tooth extraction and after 6 months, were used to assess alveolar ridge changes both vertically and horizontally.

Results

There was a significant gain in the buccal and middle of the extraction socket bone height, recording 86.01% (6.33 mm) and 206.45% (9.6 mm), respectively. There was an insignificant bone loss in the lingual bone height and width, recording − 8.49% (-1.06 mm) and − 13.39% (1.05 mm), respectively. The results also showed a non-significant decrease in alveolar bone density (-14.06%) between pre-operative bone present apical to the extraction socket and newly formed bone inside the socket.

Conclusions

Ridge preservation/augmentation techniques using a bone graft mixed with PRF and covered by PRF membranes in fresh extraction sockets complicated by the loss of buccal bone result in buccal bone augmentation and a reduction in horizontal and vertical ridge collapse after tooth extraction.

Clinical relevance

The bovine xenograft in conjunction with PRF can be used immediately after extraction for ridge preservation, providing adequate bone width and height for implant placement.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Alveolar ridge bone quantity and quality are important factors for osseointegration and the long-term survival of dental implants [1, 2]. Many clinical studies reported a loss of 11–22% of alveolar bone height and 29–63% of alveolar bone width after tooth extraction, which occurred mainly on the buccal side [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Bone loss happens at a fast rate during the first 3–6 months post-extraction, then it slows down to 0.5–1% bone loss per year [11, 12].

There are different techniques for socket preservation depending on the type of bone grafts used, such as autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts, in addition to bioactive agents and the use of membranes to achieve the concept of guided bone regeneration (GBR). [13,14,15,16] The introduction of socket seal techniques resulted in more effective outcomes in comparison to spontaneous healing or using biomaterials without a seal [17,18,19,20,21], The socket seal utilizes different materials, such as soft tissue grafts or collagen matrix [12, 17, 22].

The use of bone grafts with socket seal techniques, or GBR, is beneficial in preventing soft tissue graft or membrane collapse into the socket area and also in enhancing new bone formation by acting as a scaffold maintaining a space for bone ingrowth and blood vessel formation [22,23,24]. Growth factors delivered in fresh extraction sockets enhance bone regeneration either used alone or in combination with other materials. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a second generation of platelet concentrates, which consists of platelets that release different growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, insulin-like growth factor, basic fibroblast growth factor, and epidermal growth factor [25,26,27]. The PRF clot provides a strong fibrin matrix that protects growth factors from proteolysis and acts as a scaffold for carrying cells essential for tissue regeneration. In addition to the advantage that PRF is completely autologous and cost-effective [28,29,30].

Although different techniques and materials have been used for alveolar ridge preservation/augmentation, no specific material or technique has resulted in superior outcomes or prevented total bone loss [31]. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using bovine xenograft with platelet-rich fibrin membrane for augmentation of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in bone width and height after using bovine xenograft with platelet-rich fibrin membrane in freshly extracted sockets.

Materials and methods

The present study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki for the ethical principles of medical research involving human subjects and was approved by the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Beni-Suef University (#REC-FDBSU/05012023-03/ER). The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT05791123. First registration 30/03/2023.Fourteen patients, who required implant treatment after posterior tooth extraction were selected from the outpatient clinic of the Department of Prosthodontics at the Future University Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine (FUE) and the Beni-Suef University Hospital for dental treatment.

Inclusion criteria

  1. (a)

    Patients requiring implant treatment after tooth extraction due to either un restorable caries lesions or affected periodontium.

  2. (b)

    Age group ranging from 20 to 60 years old.

  3. (c)

    Patients who are able to tolerate the procedure under local anesthesia.

  4. (d)

    The socket wall is characterized by loss of buccal bone (> 50%) confirmed by preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and presence of other socket walls; mesial, distal and lingual walls.

Exclusion criteria

  1. (a)

    Diabetic patients that are not well controlled.

  2. (b)

    Patients with hypertension, hepatic and renal disorders.

  3. (c)

    Systemic diseases concerned with bone metabolism.

  4. (d)

    heavy smokers were also excluded from the study.

Study power and sample size calculation

Sample size calculation was done according to a study [32], that attempted alveolar bone preservation after tooth extraction using different materials. The study reported a true difference in the mean ± SD of bone change by approximately 5.71 ± 3.45. According to the previous study, we deduced that the minimum proper sample size was 7 extraction sites to achieve 80% power at α level = 0.05. To compensate for a drop-out rate, the number was increased to 14 extraction sites. The sample size was calculated using (PS: Power and Sample Size Calculation 3.1) software.

Surgical protocol

Preoperative radiographic assessment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (PaX-i3D Green; VATECH)with 90 kV and 12 mA for 12 s as exposure parameters and with the recommended field of view by the manufacture (Fig. 1) was used to visualize the status of the existing alveolar bone in all patients. A full mucoperiosteal flap was raised buccally to expose the bone crest. Atraumatic tooth extraction protocol was used to perform all teeth extractions, which included sectioning of multirooted teeth, the use of periotomes to luxate the roots, the preservation of bony walls of the socket (mesial, distal, lingual, and inter-radicular walls), and the avoidance of applying any pressure to bony walls after tooth extraction (socket squeeze). Extraction sockets were irrigated and curetted.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preoperative CBCT for non-restorable lower left first molar. Note the absence of buccal bone

Full size image

Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) preparation

Intravenous blood was withdrawn just prior to surgery and placed in six sterile vacutainer tubes of 5 mL capacity without anticoagulant and immediately centrifuged at 3,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) for 10 min (LABFISH solutions GMBH, Germany) After blood centrifugation, a structured fibrin clot is formed in the middle of the tube, with red blood cells at the bottom and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) at the top. Only the PRF clot was easily taken from the tubes and separated using a sterile tweezer and scissors. A small red blood cell layer was preserved after the removal of PPP to keep “the buffy coat” layer rich in white blood cells (WBCs) within the clot. Minced PRF was achieved by cutting one or more PRF clots into small pieces using a scissor and then mixing it with the bovine xenograft(Inno Oss B, Cowellmedi ; Korea) and placing it inside the extraction socket (Fig. 2) to build the lost buccal wall and fill the socket. Other PRF clots were used as membranes. The PRF membranes were prepared by squeezing the PRF clot between two sterile glass slabs to squeeze out the fluids in the fibrin clot. Multiple PRF membranes were then placed to seal the extraction socket and cover the underlying bone graft buccally and occlusally. The flap was positioned in its original position with simple interrupted sutures using 4 − 0 absorbable polyglycolic acid sutures (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Clinical photograph showing an extraction socket filled with bone graft mixed with minced PRF.

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Clinical photograph showing an extraction socket sealed with multiple PRF membranes and sutured

Full size image

Post-surgical phase

Postoperative oral analgesics (Brufen 400 mg tablets) on need and systemic antibiotics (Amoxicillin 500 mg t.d.s.) were prescribed for 7 days to avoid postsurgical infection. A mouth rinse of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 3 times daily for 4 weeks, was prescribed for plaque control. The sutures were removed after two weeks. The postoperative evaluation after 6 months was achieved by CBCT, and dental implants are placed at the healed sites.

Radiographic analysis

CBCT was obtained at baseline (before tooth extraction) and at 6 months postoperatively. The CBCT scans was analyzed using Blue Sky software program. (Blue Sky V4.11.2 64bit, IL, USA). The area of interest was selected using the software program (x, y) coordination tool [33,34,35]. Linear radiographic measurements in mm between 2 marked points were made on the CBCT radiographs [34, 35] (Figs. 4 and 5). Bone changes after tooth extraction were measured by assessing the width and height of the alveolar bone. Three lines were drawn to divide the socket:

  1. (a)

    Buccal alveolar bone height: The distance from the top of the buccal alveolar bone to the bottom of the mandible.

  2. (b)

    Lingual alveolar bone height: The distance from the top of the lingual alveolar bone to the bottom of the mandible.

  3. (c)

    The middle of the socket: The distance from the socket wall halfway between the lingual and buccal bony peaks to the bottom of the mandible.

  4. (d)

    The alveolar width: The distance between the drawn lines (a) and (b).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Radiographic measurement of bone width and height before surgery. (a) The measurement from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the top of the buccal alveolar bone (b) The measurement from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the top of the palatal alveolar bone (c) The measure from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the socket wall halfway between the palatal and buccal bony peaks. (d)The bone width is achieved by measuring the distance from points (a) to (b)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Radiographic measurement of bone width and height 6 months after surgery. (a) The measurement from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the top of the buccal alveolar bone (b) The measurement from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the top of the palatal alveolar bone (c) The measure from the floor of the maxillary sinus to the halfway between the palatal and buccal plates of bone. (d) The bone width is achieved by measuring the distance from points (a) to (b)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Measurement of the bone density in Hounsfield units

Full size image

In the case of maxillary sites, the floor of the maxillary sinus was taken as a reference line instead of the bottom of the mandible. To locate the healed extraction site mesiodistally on CBCT, a measured distance was achieved between the adjacent teeth and the middle position of the tooth on CBCT taken before extraction. Then, the same records were obtained on the post-operative CBCT.

Bone density

The bone density was calculated using the Hounsfield units (HU) which were automatically calculated using the blue sky software program built-in density measuring tool [33, 36]. The surface area of the defect was divided into 10 successive parallel points then the Gray level of each point was calculated, and the mean value of these points was recorded [33, 36]. This represents the bone density at the defect site. These measurements were taken at the baseline and after 6 months, and then the results were compared to check for any change in bone density. (Fig. 6).

Statistical methodology

Data were statistically evaluated using the IBM SPSS software package, version 24.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Data were presented as means and standard deviations for each parameter and compared at different time intervals using a paired t-test for dependent variables.

Results

14 patients with mean age 40.3 ± 11.2 years completed this study (9 females and 5 males). The distribution of extraction sites is shown in Table 1.

Regarding the buccal alveolar bone height, there was a significant increase of (86.01%) after six months, while the lingual alveolar bone height, revealed an insignificant decrease by (8.49%). (Table 2)

Table 1 Tooth Extraction Sites Distribution
Full size table
Table 2 Alveolar Bone Height, Width and Density CBCT Measurements among Six Months Postoperative
Full size table

For the middle of the socket, there was a significant increase of (206.45%) after six months recording a P-value < 0.05 using a paired t-test. On the other hand, alveolar bone width and density revealed an insignificant ant decrease by (13.39%) and (14.06%) respectively, with a P-value > 0.05. (Table 2)

Discussion

Ridge preservation is defined as alveolar preservation within the bony envelope existing after tooth extraction, while ridge augmentation is defined as increasing the volume of bone beyond the bony envelope at the time of extraction [37] Clinically, it is often difficult to differentiate between those two techniques, and in the literature, they are described mainly as “extraction socket preservation.“ [14].

A systematic review done by Juodzbalys G et al. in 2019 [14] presented an extraction socket classification based on morphological characteristics and set up a decision tree for ridge preservation/augmentation after extraction procedures. Ridge preservation/augmentation was recommended in the following cases; when there are facial soft tissue deficiencies so aesthetic results are jeopardized, the presence of buccal wall defect > 50%, and horizontal bone loss ˃ 2 mm. Also, functional reasons were discussed, such as when implant primary stability is difficult to achieve because the existing bone apical to the extraction socket is less than 3 mm, damage of inter-radicular bone, or an absence of contact between the implant and bony walls. Moreover, risk-related factors were mentioned, such as the risk of considerable bone loss (due to thin buccal wall thickness post-operatively < 2 mm, multiple extractions, and a thin periodontal biotype < 1 mm), the risk of maxillary sinus or nasal floor perforation, and the risk of post-operative infection development due to the presence of bony lesions ˃ 5 mm [14].

The extent of bone loss after tooth extraction depends on different factors, such as the thickness of facial bone and its existence [38], tooth angulation [39],the presence of periodontal or endodontic infection, the number of adjacent teeth needed to be extracted, and traumatic tooth extraction practices that resulted in bony wall fracture [40, 41]. During healing, if there is no sufficient bony wall barrier, this could result in fibrous tissue ingrowths into the fresh extraction socket, impairing bone regeneration and causing considerable loss of alveolar bone [42].

Regarding facial bone thickness, a clinical study evaluated 39 patients by CBCT and showed that thin periodontal biotypes with facial bone thickness ≤ 1 mm experienced gradual bone loss after 2 months of healing, extending to 62% of the bone height. While a thick periodontal biotype with a facial bone thickness of more than 1 mm revealed a less obvious bone loss, reaching only 9% of bone height [38].

While concerning the number of adjacent extraction teeth, an experimental study [43] revealed that buccal bone obtains its blood supply from adjacent teeth, and they classified extraction sockets as single or multiple extractions. Also, Al-Shabeeb et al. [44] proved that neighboring tooth extraction resulted in advanced bone loss. Moreover, extensive bone loss was presented when multiple adjacent immediate implants were done.

Various treatment protocols were recommended to decrease dimensional changes that occur post-extraction and/or to renew damaged socket walls: (1) Atraumatic tooth extraction (low trauma tooth extraction technique), (2) Flapless tooth extraction concept, and (3) Ridge preservation/augmentation techniques. Atraumatic tooth extraction included the use of special extraction instruments and devices in addition to multi-rooted teeth sectioning in order to decrease pressure on the facial and inter-radicular bones and remove the root parts separately [45].

Regarding flap elevation, it was known that flap elevation has a negative effect on bone remodeling during healing due to the disruption of the periosteal blood vessels and the increase in postoperative local inflammation. However, a systematic review proved that bone loss with or without flap elevation had no differences observed after a healing period of 6 months [46]. Conversely, a flapless procedure should be recommended whenever possible [24].

Studies that compared different ridge preservation/augmentation procedures with spontaneous healing after tooth extraction demonstrated a greater orofacial dimension of alveolar bone after healing when ridge preservation/augmentation procedures were adopted. While spontaneous healing resulted in massive bone alterations in many cases, which risked the possibility of the dental implant as a prosthetic treatment [46, 47].

In the present study, a significant gain in the buccal bone height was achieved that reached 86.01% (6.33 mm), and the socket filled with new bone that was 206.45% (9.6 mm) in the middle of the socket. An insignificant bone loss occurred in the lingual alveolar bone width and height which was − 8.49% (-1.06 mm) and − 13.39% (-1.05 mm) respectively. This was in accordance with a randomized, controlled clinical trial that applied various materials to preserve alveolar bone after tooth extraction. The alveolar bone loss was 1.3 mm in bone width and 0.57 mm in bone height after 3 months with the use of a xenograft. While in sites without socket preservation techniques, the horizontal and vertical bone loss were 2.79 and 1.74 mm, respectively, at 3 months post-surgically [48]. In another study, [32] extraction sites were filled with a composite material of hydroxyapatite/collagen for ridge preservation. After 3 months post-surgery, the results showed that the middle of the socket floor was elevated by 5.71 ± 3.45 mm, while the bone width was decreased by 1.02 ± 1.64 mm, and the height was decreased at the lingual side by 0.35 ± 1.73 mm.

Moreover, an animal study done on beagle dogs observed the sequence of healing processes in extraction sockets with buccal bone- deficient defects. In the spontaneous healing of deficient sites, large dimensional shrinkage (81.85 ± 6.60%) occurred. While in ridge augmentation sites, the final dimensions (104.74 ± 6.18%) were comparable to those of the pristine alveolar ridge, and this was attributed to the space provided by biomaterials placed in ridge augmentation sites, into which new bone formed continuouslys [49]. For this reason, a review article [24] recommended that in the case of severe buccal bone loss (> 50%), especially in the aesthetic zone, preservation of hard tissue using bone substitute material before implant placement is adopted.

Although, there was insignificant decrease in the bone density in the present study, this could be attributed to the newly formed bone is cancellous bone with more air spaces in comparison to the socket walls which may cause decrease in the bone density as seen in (Fig. 6).

Regarding the benefits of combining PRF with bone grafts, a study done by Thakkar DJ et al. [50] compared the use of PRF with DFDBA bone graft and the use of DFDBA alone for socket preservation. After 6 months, the loss of hard tissue width and height in the PRF + DFDBA group was − 0.75 (0.493) mm and − 1.083 (0.429) mm, respectively. While in the group of DFDBA alone, the reduction values of ridge width and height were − 1.361 (0.703) mm and − 1.389 (0.502) mm respectively, which proved that the incorporation of PRF into the bone graft resulted in reduced bone loss.

In the present study, the use of PRF membrane gave the advantage of sealing the socket to cover the bone graft without the need to coronally advance the flap or to move the keratinized tissue palatally/lingually. Also, PRF is well known to accelerate soft tissue healing and promote angiogenesis [51], which resulted in faster soft tissue closure for the socket.

One of the limitations of this study is during CBCT data aquesition,it is difficult to reproduce the same multi planar view on pre- and postoperative cbct reconstructions due to the the different degree of the patient mouth opening.which may cause minor errors in the measurements of the outcome. Also the build-up, image acquisition of CBCT scanners may cause artefacts for grey level measurements in bone quality assessment, how ever the CBCT offers a measurment device with less radaiation biohazards in comparison to the medical CT devices.

Conclusions

The present study proved that the placement of a bone graft mixed with PRF and covered by PRF membranes in a fresh extraction socket that was complicated by the loss of buccal bone resulted in buccal bone augmentation and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge collapse after tooth extraction.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Irinakis T. Rationale for socket preservation after extraction of a single-rooted tooth when planning for future implant placement. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72:917–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dohiem MM, Abdelaziz MS, Abdalla MF, Fawzy AM. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos LKT. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2003;23:313–23.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Trombelli L, Farina R, Marzola A, Bozzi L, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J. Modeling and remodeling of human extraction sockets. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:630–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Kwan S, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Aust Dent J. 2009;54:70–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Der Weijden F, Dell’Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36:1048–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan WL, Wong TLT, Wong MCM, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(SUPPL 5):1–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Urban IA, Monje A. Guided bone regeneration in Alveolar Bone Reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2019;31:331–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, Ali S, Faggion CMJ, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021;2021.

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ashman A, Froum S, Rosenlicht J. Replacement therapy. N Y State Dent J. 1994;60:12–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Araújo MG, da Silva JCC, de Mendonça AF, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following grafting of fresh extraction sockets in man: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz MC, Kallweit MB, Kallweit S, Koch R, Lauer G, Mai R et al. Autogenous bone and a bovine bone substitute for ridge preservation: preliminary clinical and histologic findings. Aust Dent J. 2016;61.

  14. Juodzbalys G, Stumbras A, Goyushov S, Duruel O, Tözüm TF. Morphological classification of extraction sockets and Clinical Decision Tree for Socket Preservation/Augmentation after tooth extraction: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019. 10.

  15. Alrayyes Y, Al-Jasser R. Regenerative potential of platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) in Socket Preservation in comparison with Conventional Treatment modalities: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Tissue Eng Regenerative Med. 2022;19:463–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. van Orten A, Goetz W, Bilhan H. Tooth-derived granules in combination with platelet-rich fibrin (sticky tooth) in Socket Preservation: a histological evaluation. Dent J. 2022;10.

  17. López-Pacheco A, Soto-Peñaloza D, Gómez M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Alarcón MA. Socket seal Surgery techniques in the esthetic zone: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7.

  18. Jung RE, Philipp A, Annen BM, Signorelli L, Thoma DS, Hämmerle CHF, et al. Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40:90–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Debel M, Toma S, Vandenberghe B, Brecx MC, Lasserre JF. Alveolar ridge dimensional changes after two socket sealing techniques. A pilot randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25:1235–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lindhe J, Cecchinato D, Donati M, Tomasi C, Liljenberg B. Ridge preservation with the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:786–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meloni SM, Tallarico M, Lolli FM, Deledda A, Pisano M, Jovanovic SA. Postextraction socket preservation using epithelial connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix.1-year results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8:39–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Philip MR, AlOtaibi S, AlEid B. The success rates of various surgical techniques for socket preservation in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg Med Pathol. 2022;34:91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kirkland G, Greenwell H, Drisko C, Wittwer JW, Yancey J, Rebitski G. Hard tissue Ridge Augmentation using a Resorbable membrane and a particulate graft without Complete Flap Closure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20.

  24. Jung RE, Ioannidis A, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Alveolar ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. Periodontology 2000. 2018;77:165–75.

  25. Miron RJ, Moraschini V, Fujioka-Kobayashi M, Zhang Y, Kawase T, Cosgarea R, et al. Use of platelet-rich fibrin for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest. 2021;25:2461–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu CL, Lee SS, Tsai CH, Lu KH, Zhao JH, Chang YC. Platelet-rich fibrin increases cell attachment, proliferation and collagen-related protein expression of human osteoblasts. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Abdelzaher K, Aly L, Ezz M, Elarini M. Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Xenogenic Bone Graft with or without Hyaluronic Acid for Post extraction Socket Preservation (Randomized Clinical Trial). Futur Dent J. 2022;8:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. T ZAH. D. D. Porous bovine bone mineral in healing of human extraction sockets. Part 1: histomorphometric evaluations at 9 months. J Periodontol. 2000;71.

  29. Arbildo H, Gamarra L, Rojas S, Infantes E, Lamas C, Vásquez H. Clinical effect of platelet rich fibrin in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Res. 2017;6:127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramaprabha G, Siji Jacob T. Platelet Rich Fibrin - A Boon for Periodontal Regeneration. Indian J Multidiscip Dent. 2014;4:956–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. MacBeth N, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Donos N, Mardas N. Hard and soft tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:982–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ohba S, Sumita Y, Nakatani Y, Noda S, Asahina I. Alveolar bone preservation by a hydroxyapatite/collagen composite material after tooth extraction. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:2413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Morar L, Băciuț G, Băciuț M, Bran S, Colosi H, Manea A et al. Analysis of CBCT Bone Density using the Hounsfield Scale. Prosthesis. 2022;4.

  34. Atef M, El Barbary A, Dahrous MSED, Zahran AF. Comparison of the soft and hard peri-implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23:456–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abd-Elrahman A, Shaheen M, Askar N, Atef M. Socket shield technique vs conventional immediate implant placement with immediate temporization. Randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:602–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Pacifici A, Pacifici L, Barbato E. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16.

  37. Hämmerle CHF, Araújo MG, Simion M. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012;23 SUPPL. 5:80–2.

  38. Chappuis V, Engel O, Reyes M, Shahim K, Nolte LP, Buser D. Ridge alterations post-extraction in the esthetic zone: a 3D analysis with CBCT. J Dent Res. 2013;92.

  39. Nevins M, Camelo M, De PS, Friedland B, Schenk R, Parma-Benfenati S. A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots. Prim Dent Care. 2006;os13:90–0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction. Aust Dent J. 1969;14:241–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Garg AK. Preservation, augmentation, and reconstruction of the alveolar ridge. Dent Implantol Update. 2001;12:81–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen ST, Wilson TG, Hämmerle CHF. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:12–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Al-Hezaimi K, Levi P, Rudy R, Al-Jandan B, Al-Rasheed A. An extraction socket classification developed using analysis of bone type and blood supply to the buccal bone in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31:421–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Al-Shabeeb MS, Al-Askar M, Al-Rasheed A, Babay N, Javed F, Wang H-L, et al. Alveolar bone remodeling around Immediate implants placed in Accordance with the extraction socket classification: A Three-Dimensional Microcomputed Tomography Analysis. J Periodontol. 2012;83:981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Caplanis N, Lozada JL, Kan JYK. Extraction defect assessment, classification, and management. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2005;33:853–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KWO, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93:950–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G. Alveolar Ridge Preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019;10.

  48. Jambhekar S, Kernen F, Bidra AS. Clinical and histologic outcomes of socket grafting after flapless tooth extraction: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113:371–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee JS, Choe SH, Cha JK, Seo GY, Kim CS. Radiographic and histologic observations of sequential healing processes following ridge augmentation after tooth extraction in buccal-bone-deficient extraction sockets in beagle dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:1388–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thakkar DJ, Deshpande NC, Dave DH, Narayankar SD. A comparative evaluation of extraction socket preservation with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft alone and along with platelet-rich fibrin: a clinical and radiographic study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2016;7:371–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Miron RJ, Fujioka-Kobayashi M, Bishara M, Zhang Y, Hernandez M, Choukroun J. Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Soft tissue Wound Healing: a systematic review. Tissue Eng - Part B: Reviews. 2017;23.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank professor Hussien El Charkawi (head of the prosthodontics department).

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Clinical trial registration: the study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with registration NCT05791123. First registration 30/03/2023.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of dentistry, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt

    Riham Mohamed Elbanna

  2. Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Prosthodontics department, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt

    Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz

  3. Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt

    Hesham Ebrahim Alameldeen

Authors
  1. Riham Mohamed Elbanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hesham Ebrahim Alameldeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Riham Mohamed Elbanna: (article approval, operator in all the practical work, design-Manuscript Writing-concept- interpretation-statistics-data collection.). Medhat Sameh Abd El Aziz: (corresponding Author, writing of the manuscript- interpretation -data collection-software- article approval.). Hesham Ebrahim Alameldeen: (concept- design-interpretation- article approval-manuscript Writing)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participants

The present study followed the Declaration of Helsinki for the ethical principles of medical research involving human subjects and was approved by the research ethics committee of Beni-Suef University REC-FDBSU/05012023-03/ER.

Informed consent

was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elbanna, R.M., Abdelaziz, M.S. & Alameldeen, H.E. Augmentation of single tooth extraction socket with deficient buccal walls using bovine xenograft with platelet-rich fibrin membrane. BMC Oral Health 23, 874 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03554-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03554-2

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us