Highlights • Opioid analgesics that are unused after surgery may contribute to drug diversion. • 54% of opioids in this study remained unused 3 weeks after dental surgery. • Little research has ...examined pharmacy programs to promote safe drug disposal. • Patients in our intervention were more willing to dispose of unused opioids.
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and ...aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for ...surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
To map the current scientific landscape regarding the association/causality of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) after tooth extraction under bisphosphonate (BF) therapy to identify ...knowledge gaps and guide future research.
This review used the PCC strategy (P = Patient; C = Concept; C = Context).
The MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics, and gray literature databases were used.
Searches were conducted by two independent reviewers until April 2024. Studies involving prior BF use and tooth extraction in humans or animals were included. Among the 176 studies, 73 (41.4 %) were in animals, and 103 (58.5 %) were in humans. Brazil led in animal studies (n = 14; 19.1 %), while Italy led in human studies (n = 14; 13.6 %). Zoledronic acid was the most cited BF (79.4 % in animals; 34.9 % in humans), with intravenous administration being most frequent (38.3 % in animals; 35.9 % in humans). The mandible was the main extraction site (n = 36 in animals; n = 41 in humans). In 91.7 % of the animal studies, sequelae compatible with osteonecrosis signs and symptoms were observed, with bone necrosis being most common (n = 39; 53.4 %). In humans, 93.2 % of studies presented 239 sequelae, with bone necrosis (n = 53; 22.1 %) being the most cited. The main location of sequelae was the mandible (n = 36 in animals; n = 41 in humans).
Animal studies highlighted bone exposure, notably using murine models, with a significant Brazilian contribution. In human studies, bone necrosis was the main sequela of MRONJ, which has been reported by researchers in the Italy.
These findings underscore the importance of careful consideration and monitoring of patients who have a history of bisphosphonate use and who are undergoing tooth extraction, highlighting the potential risk of MRONJ.
Hydrogels with high mechanical strength and injectability have attracted extensive attention in biomedical and tissue engineering. However, endowing a hydrogel with both properties is challenging ...because they are generally inversely related. In this work, by constructing a multi‐hydrogen‐bonding system, a high‐strength and injectable supramolecular hydrogel is successfully fabricated. It is constructed by the self‐assembly of a monomeric nucleoside molecular gelator (2‐amino‐2′‐fluoro‐2′‐deoxyadenosine (2‐FA)) with distilled water/phosphate buffered saline as solvent. Its storage modulus reaches 1 MPa at a concentration of 5.0 wt%, which is the strongest supramolecular hydrogel comprising an ultralow‐molecular‐weight (MW < 300) gelator. Furthermore, it exhibits excellent shear‐thinning injectability, and completes the sol–gel transition in seconds after injection at 37 °C. The multi‐hydrogen‐bonding system is essentially based on the synergistic interactions between the double NH2 groups, water molecules, and 2′‐F atoms. Furthermore, the 2‐FA hydrogel exhibits excellent biocompatibility and antibacterial activity. When applied to rat molar extraction sockets, compared to natural healing and the commercial hemorrhage agent gelatin sponge, the 2‐FA hydrogel exhibits faster degradation and induces less osteoclastic activity and inflammatory infiltration, resulting in more complete bone healing. In summary, this study provides ideas for proposing a multifunctional, high‐strength, and injectable supramolecular hydrogel for various biomedical engineering applications.
Simultaneously achieving high strength and injectability in one hydrogel is challenging. A high strength and injectable supramolecular hydrogel is constructed by the self‐assembly of a monomeric nucleoside molecular gelator (2‐amino‐2′‐fluoro‐2′‐deoxyadenosine (2‐FA)). Notably, it exhibits excellent biocompatibility, fast biodegradation, antibacterial property, and osteoclast inhibition, making it a potential candidate biomaterial for tooth‐extraction wound healing and tissue engineering.
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and ...aesthetic outcomes when implants are used.
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 July 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 22 July 2014), the Meta Register of Current Controlled Trials (to 22 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 22 July 2014), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 22 July 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 July 2014), Scopus (1966 to 22 July 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 July 2014) and OpenGrey (to 22 July 2014). A number of journals were also handsearched. Trial authors were contacted to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials. There were no restrictions regarding language and date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of alveolar ridge preservation techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
Two review authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. Results were combined using random-effects models with mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings.
A total of 50 trials were potentially eligible for inclusion, of which 42 trials were excluded. We included eight RCTs with a total of 233 extraction sites in 184 participants. One trial was judged to be at unclear risk of bias and the remaining trials were at high risk of bias. From two trials comparing xenograft with extraction alone (70 participants, moderate quality evidence), there was some evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -2.60 mm; 95% CI -3.43 to -1.76) and width (MD -1.97 mm; 95% CI -2.48 to -1.46). This was also found in one trial comparing allograft with extraction (24 participants, low quality evidence): ridge height (MD -2.20 mm; 95% CI -0.75 to -3.65) and width (MD - 1.40 mm; 95% CI 0.00 to -2.80) and height. From two RCTs comparing alloplast versus xenograft no evidence was found that either ridge preservation technique caused a smaller reduction in loss of ridge height (MD -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.86 to 0.16) or width (MD -0.44 mm; 95% CI -0.90 to 0.02; two trials (55 participants); moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques and extraction based on the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, complications, implant failure, or changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and probing depths of neighbouring teeth. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes.
There is limited evidence that ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction. There is also lack of evidence of any differences in implant failure, aesthetic outcomes or any other clinical parameters due to the lack of information or long-term data. There is no convincing evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
The theory of at least 2-week waiting period between tooth extraction and head and neck radiotherapy could reduce osteoradionecrosis remains controversial. Thus, this study examined the theory and ...associated factors.
Data were retrieved from the National Health Insurance Research Database, Taiwan Cancer Registry Database, and Cause of Death Statistics. We included 24,353 patients with head and neck cancer who received radiotherapy from 2011 to 2017 and were followed up until 2019. The patients were divided into three groups: those undergoing tooth removal 2-8 weeks before radiotherapy, those undergoing tooth removal within 2 weeks before radiotherapy, and others. Confounding factors were clinical information, physical conditions, and risky habits. We used the Cox regression model to assess osteoradionecrosis risk.
No significant difference in osteoradionecrosis risk was observed between those undergoing tooth extraction within 2 weeks before radiotherapy and the other groups. An irradiation dose of ≥60 Gy, chemotherapy, tumor excision, post-radiotherapy tooth extraction, mandibulectomy, hyperlipidemia, and oral cavity as the tumor subsite were significantly positively associated with osteoradionecrosis risk.
A waiting period of ≥2 weeks between tooth extraction and radiotherapy did not significantly reduce osteoradionecrosis risk.
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures have been advocated to minimize postextraction dimensional loss. There is a need for systematic analyses of clinical factors affecting the outcomes of these ...procedures in order to improve their clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation procedures in terms of hard tissue dimensional changes and to determine clinical factors affecting outcomes of these procedures.
Studies comparing alveolar ridge preservation procedures with tooth extraction alone that reported quantitative outcomes for hard tissue dimensional changes were included. The primary outcome variable was horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone. Subgroup analyses evaluated effects of wound closure, flap elevation, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, use of growth factors, socket morphology, and the position of teeth on outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
Twenty-one studies were included, and quantitative analyses were performed for seven outcome variables. Significant differences between alveolar ridge preservation and control sites were found for six outcome variables, all favoring alveolar ridge preservation procedures. The magnitude of effect for the primary outcome variable (horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone) was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.44, 2.28; P < .001). This magnitude of effect for the primary variable (as determined by subgroup analysis) was also significantly affected by type of wound closure (P = .033), type of grafting materials (P = .001), use of barrier membranes (P = .006), use of growth factors (P = .003), and socket morphology (P < .001).
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures are effective in minimizing postextraction hard tissue dimensional loss. The outcomes of these procedures are affected by morphology of extraction sockets, type of wound closure, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, and use of growth factors.
PDF
