MATERIALS AND METHOD: Forty-five patients with dry socket were divided into two treatment groups. Group I dry socket patients (n = 30) received conventional treatment while group II patients (n = 15) were irradiated with LLLT at a setting of 200-mW, 6-J, continuous-wave mode using an R02 tipless handpiece (Fotona Er:YAG, Europe), on the buccal, lingual, and middle surfaces of the socket for 30 s from a delivery distance of 1 cm. Pain score and quantification of granulation tissue in the socket were recorded at 0, 4, and 7 days post-dry socket treatment.
RESULTS: Results showed that the LLLT-irradiated group II sockets showed a much lower VAS pain score of 1-2 as early as day 4, and a richer amount of granulation tissue compared to the conventional treated group I socket. The amount and rate of granulation tissue formation in the dry socket are inversely proportional to the pain score showing significant clinical effectiveness of LLLT on promoting the healing of the dry socket, with improvement in symptoms (P = .001). Conventionally treated dry sockets take at least 7 days to match the effective healing of an LLLT-irradiated dry socket.
CONCLUSION: LLLT irradiation influences biomodulation of dry socket healing by dampening inflammation, promoting vascularization, stimulating granulation, and controlling pain symptoms.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LLLT may be an additional effective tool for managing dry sockets in general dental practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was performed for the studies published in the English language independently by all four authors (search team) in the Medline database through the PubMed search engine for the past 5 years. The study involved predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search. The final lists of clinical trials were analyzed to determine the existing evidence and suggested the mechanism of action.
REVIEW RESULTS: The search resulted in 117 titles. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of seven studies were found eligible for this systematic review. Out of seven, two studies were found eligible for meta-analysis whereas remaining included for the systematic review.
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis favors socket grafting compared to control in terms of preservation of existing bone height and width. The SHA grafting showed successful bone regeneration with less connective tissue component. The histomorphometric evaluation showed a good bone regeneration associated with SHA than xenograft. Within the limitations of this meta-analysis, the synthetic GSM can be used for socket grafting.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In the wake of increasing graft materials in the market and different origin raw material sources for the preparation of graft materials, clinicians are in dilemma for selection and its use. The success of grafting depends on the selection of appropriate material with a suitable calcium/phosphate (Ca/P) ratio. The review provided available evidence for the use of SHA.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of bovine bone granules on alveolar bone socket augmentation for ridge preservation following atraumatic tooth extraction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty medically fit patients (12 males and 8 females aged between 18 and 40 years) who needed noncomplicated tooth extraction of 1 mandibular premolar tooth were divided randomly and equally into 2 groups. In control group I, the empty extraction socket was left untreated and allowed to heal in a conventional way. In group II, the empty extraction socket wound was filled with lyophilized bovine bone xenograft granules 0.25 to 1 mm of size, 1 mL/vial. A resorbable pericardium membrane was placed to cover the defect. Clinical and 3-dimensional radiological assessments were performed at day 0, 3 months, and 9 months postoperative.
RESULTS: There were no clinical differences in general wound healing between the groups. Comparisons within the groups showed a significant difference of bone resorption of 1.49 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.63-2.35) at 3 months, and further resorption of 1.84 mm (P ≤ 0.05) at 9 months in the control group. No significant changes of bone resorption were observed in group II during the same time interval. Comparison between groups showed a significant difference of bone resorption at 3 and 9 months (2.40 and 2.88 mm, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The use of lyophilized demineralized bovine bone granules in socket preservation to fill in the extraction socket seems essential in preserving the alveolar bone dimension as it showed excellent soft and hard tissue healing. This study concludes that the alveolar bone socket exhibited a dynamic process of resorption from the first day of tooth extraction. Evidence shows the possibility of using bovine bone granules routinely in socket volume preservation techniques following tooth extraction.
METHODS: Five single maxillary premolar extraction sockets received PRF-CS grafts and five single maxillary premolar sockets received PRF-X grafts. Linear (horizontal and vertical) measurements were accomplished using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images and volumetric changes were assessed using MIMICS software. Soft tissue level changes were measured using Stonecast models. All measurements were recorded at baseline (before extraction) and at 5-months post-extraction.
RESULTS: Significant reduction in vertical and horizontal dimensions were observed in both groups except for distal bone height (DBH = 0.44 ± 0.45 mm, p = 0.09) and palatal bone height (PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06) in PRF-X group. PRF-CS group demonstrated mean horizontal shrinkage of 1.27 ± 0.82 mm (p = 0.02), when compared with PRF-X group (1.40 ± 0.85 mm, p = 0.02). Vertical resorption for mesial bone height (MBH = 0.56 ± 0.25 mm, p = 0.008), buccal bone height (BBH = 1.62 ± 0.91 mm, p = 0.01) and palatal bone height (PBH = 1.39 ± 0.87 mm, p = 0.02) in PRF-CS group was more than resorption in PRF-X group (MBH = 0.28 ± 0.14 mm, p = 0.01, BBH = 0.63 ± 0.39 mm, p = 0.02 and PBH = 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, p = 0.06). Volumetric bone resorption was significant within both groups (PRF-CS = 168.33 ± 63.68 mm3, p = 0.004; PRF-X = 102.88 ± 32.93 mm3, p = 0.002), though not significant (p = 0.08) when compared between groups. In PRF-X group, the distal soft tissue level (DSH = 1.00 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.03) demonstrated almost 2 times more reduction when compared with PRF-CS group (DSH = 1.00 ± 1.00 mm, 0.08). The reduction of the buccal soft tissue level was pronounced in PRF-CS group (BSH = 2.00 ± 2.00 mm, p = 0.06) when compared with PRF-X group (BSH = 1.00 ± 1.50 mm, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PRF-CS grafted sites showed no significant difference with PRF-X grafted sites in linear and volumetric dimensional changes and might show clinical benefits for socket augmentation. The study is officially registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Registration (NCT03851289).