Volume 23, Issue s5 pp. 80-82
Osteology Consensus Report

Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets

Christoph H.F. Hämmerle

Christoph H.F. Hämmerle

Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Mauricio G. Araújo

Mauricio G. Araújo

Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringá, Parana, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Massimo Simion

Massimo Simion

Departmet of Periodontology, IRCCS Cà Granda Foundation – Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Reconstructive, Surgical and Diagnostic Science, University of Milan

Department of Periodonology, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Search for more papers by this author
On Behalf of the Osteology Consensus Group 2011

On Behalf of the Osteology Consensus Group 2011

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 28 December 2011
Citations: 288

Corresponding author:

Mauricio G. Araujo

Department of Dentistry

State University of Maringá

Parana, Brazil

Tel.: +41 44 634 32 51

Fax: +41 44 634 43 05

e-mail: [email protected]

* Osteology Consensus Group 2011: Mauricio G. Araújo, Maringa, Parana, Brazil; Dieter Bosshardt, Daniel Buser, Berne, Switzerland; William V. Giannobile, Ann Arbor, Michighan, USA; Reinhard Gruber, Vienna, Austria; Christoph H.F. Hämmerle, Ronald E. Jung, Zürich, Switzerland; Niklaus P. Lang, Hong Kong SAR PRC; Myron Nevins, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Friedrich Neukam, Nuremberg, Germany; Mariano Sanz, Madrid, Spain; Massimo Simion, Milano, Italy; Georg Watzek, Vienna, Austria

Conflicts of interest:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abstract

Objectives

The fresh extraction socket in the alveolar ridge represents a special challenge in everyday clinical practice. Maintenance of the hard and soft tissue envelope and a stable ridge volume were considered important aims to allow simplifying subsequent treatments and optimizing their outcomes in particular, when implants are planned to be placed.

Material and Methods:

Prior to the consensus meeting four comprehensive systematic reviews were written on two topics regarding ridge alteration and ridge preservation following tooth extraction and implant placement following tooth extraction. During the conference these manuscripts were discussed and accepted thereafter. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations were formulated.

Results:

The systematic reviews demonstrated that the alveolar ridge undergoes a mean horizontal reduction in width of 3.8 mm and a mean vertical reduction in height of 1.24 mm within 6 months after tooth extraction. The techniques aimed at ridge preservation encompassed two different approaches: i) maintaining the ridge profile, ii) enlarging the ridge profile. Regarding timing of implant placement the literature showed that immediate implant placement leads to high implant survival rates. This procedure is primarily recommended in premolar sites with low esthetic importance and favorable anatomy. In the esthetic zone, however, a high risk for mucosal recession was reported. Hence, it should only be used in stringently selected situations with lower risks and only by experienced clinicians. In molar sites a high need for soft and hard tissue augmentation was identified.

Conclusions:

Future research should clearly identify the clinical and patient benefits resulting from ridge preservation compared with traditional procedures. In addition, future research should also aim at better identifying parameters critical for positive treatment outcomes with immediate implants. The result of this procedure should be compared to early and late implant placement.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.