Alveolar ridge preservation versus early implant placement in single non‐molar sites: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta‐analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following extraction of non‐molar teeth in comparison to early implant placement (EIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, patient‐reported outcomes, and implant failure rate.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to identify randomized and non‐randomized studies that compared ARP to EIP. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.ResultsA total of 106 studies were identified, of which five studies with 198 non‐molar extraction sockets in 198 participants were included. Overall meta‐analysis showed significant differences in changes in midfacial mucosal margin (mean difference (MD) −0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to −0.01; p = .03) and ridge width (MD −1.70; 95% CI −3.19 to −0.20; p = .03) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP was also associated with less need for additional augmentation at implant placement, but the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of non‐molar teeth has short‐term positive effects on soft tissue contour, mucosal margin and thickness, and alveolar ridge width and height. It can also simplify future implant treatment by minimizing the need for additional augmentation.