Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rua Boulevard 28 de Setembro, 157 Vila Isabel, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20551-030, Brazil.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rua Boulevard 28 de Setembro, 157 Vila Isabel, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20551-030, Brazil.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021 Nov;49(11):1064-1071. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.06.005. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different bone-substitute materials used for alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction. The electronic search was carried out on Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and grey literature up to March 22, 2020 (registration number INPLASY202030005). Only randomized controlled trials were included to answer the following PICOS question: 'What grafting materials produce greater alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction?' The primary outcomes were the alveolar width resorption 1 mm below the alveolar crest and buccal height resorption in millimeters. Of the 4379 studies initially identified, 31 studies involving 1088 patients were included in the quantitative analyses. Out of 25 revised biomaterials, eight showed a statistically significant difference compared with unassisted healing in both alveolar width and height measurements (mean width differences: ApatosⓇ, 2.27 [1.266-3.28]; Bio-OssⓇ, 0.88 [0.33-1.42]; Bio-Oss CollⓇ, 0.53 [0.04-1.01]; Bond-apatiteⓇ, 2.20 [1.30-3.11]; freeze-dried bone allograft, 1.35 [0.44-2.26]; Gen-OsⓇ, 1.90 [0.60-3.20]; platelet-rich fibrin, 1.66 [0.66-2.67]; and MP3Ⓡ, 2.67 [1.59-3.75]). Overall, xenograft materials should be considered as among the best of the available grafting materials for alveolar preservation after tooth extraction.
一项系统评价和网络荟萃分析比较了拔牙后用于牙槽嵴保存的不同骨替代材料。电子检索包括 Embase、PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science、Scopus、LILACS 和灰色文献，检索时间截至 2020 年 3 月 22 日（注册号 INPLASY202030005）。仅纳入随机对照试验来回答以下 PICOS 问题：“哪种移植材料在拔牙后能更好地保存牙槽嵴？”主要结局是牙槽嵴顶下 1mm 的牙槽宽度吸收和颊侧高度吸收。最初确定的 4379 项研究中，有 31 项研究（涉及 1088 例患者）纳入了定量分析。在 25 种改良生物材料中，有 8 种在牙槽宽度和高度测量方面与未辅助愈合有统计学差异（平均宽度差异：Apatos Ⓡ，2.27[1.266-3.28]；Bio-Oss Ⓡ，0.88[0.33-1.42]；Bio-Oss Coll Ⓡ，0.53[0.04-1.01]；Bond-apatite Ⓡ，2.20[1.30-3.11]；冻干骨同种异体移植物，1.35[0.44-2.26]；Gen-Os Ⓡ，1.90[0.60-3.20]；富含血小板纤维蛋白，1.66[0.66-2.67]；和 MP3 Ⓡ，2.67[1.59-3.75]）。总体而言，异种移植物材料应被认为是拔牙后牙槽保存的最佳可用移植材料之一。
