Received 10.06.24

DOI: 10.35556/idr-2025-1(110)0-13

Analysis of well preservation method: a clinical study of effectiveness
Salekh K.M., ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4415-766X, SPIN-code: 1798-1439, Author ID: 1154438;
Kazarian G.G., ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3532-983X, SPIN-code: 7872-9168, Author ID: 1127744;
Serebreny S.V., ORCID: 0009-0003-3739-0196;
Klimenkov V.A., ORCID: 0009-0002-2305-3837, SPIN-код: 2527-7062
Peoples Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
117198, Russia, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya st., 6

E-mail address: ms.s.karina@mail.ru

Summary
Dental implantation is a modern method of restoring teeth. The success of this procedure is closely related to the condition of the tissue in which the dental implant is placed. It is particularly important to preserve bone volume after tooth extraction, as physiological bone resorption after this procedure can make it difficult to place the implant. Minimizing resorption is key as preserving bone volume is critical for dental implant placement.
The aim of the study was to compare the changes in bone size after tooth extraction when using the technique of well preservation with bone material and with natural healing.
Material and methods. The study was conducted between November 2022 and January 2024. A total of 20 patients divided into two groups participated in the study. Group 1 underwent preservation of the well with bone material and group 2 was the control group with natural healing of the well. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) before and after tooth extraction was performed to measure the transverse and linear parameters of the well. Data comparison and statistical processing were performed using Microsoft Excel software and StatTech v. 4.2.6.
Results. After a follow-up CBCT study, group 1 showed significant bone preservation compared to the control group. Bone loss in group 1 was significantly less compared to the control group for all measured parameters. Statistically significant differences were found for vestibular and oral alveolar ridge height.
Conclusion. A comparative analysis of two methods after tooth extraction showed that group 1 demonstrated higher efficacy in preventing bone loss compared to the control group.

Keywords: socket preservation, bone material, physiological resorption, bone tissue, tooth extraction.

For citation: Salekh K.M., Kazarian G.G., Serebreny S.V., Klimenkov V.A. Analysis of well preservation method: a clinical study of effectiveness. Stomatology for All / Int. Dental Review. 2025; no. 1 (110): 8–13 (in Russian). doi: 10.35556/idr-2025-1(110)8-13

References
1. Ramani R.S., Bennani V., Aarts J.M., Choi J.J.E., Brunton P.A. Patient satisfaction with esthetics, phonetics, and function following implant-supported fixed restorative treatment in the esthetic zone: A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; no. 32 (7): 662–672. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12625
2. Duong H.Y., Roccuzzo A., Stahli A., Salvi G.E., Lang N.P., Sculean A. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000. 2022; no. 88 (1): 201–237. doi: 10.1111/prd.12419
3. Hämmerle C.H.F., Tarnow D. The etiology of hard- and soft-tissue deficiencies at dental implants: A narrative review. J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45, no. 20: 267–277. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12955
4. Chackartchi T., Romanos G.E., Sculean A. Soft tissue-related complications and management around dental implants. Periodontol 2000. 2019; no. 81 (1): 124–138. doi: 10.1111/prd.12287
5. Romanos G.E., Delgado-Ruiz R., Sculean A. Concepts for prevention of complications in implant therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2019; no. 81 (1): 7–17. doi: 10.1111/prd.12278
6. Avila-Ortiz G., Elangovan S., Kramer K.W., Blanchette D., Dawson D.V. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; no. 93 (10): 950–958. doi: 10.1177/0022034514541127
7. Barootchi S., Wang H.L., Ravida A., Ben Amor F., Riccitiello F., Rengo C. et al. Ridge preservation techniques to avoid invasive bone reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working Group C. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019; no. 12 (4): 399–416.
8.Kobozev M.I., Balandina M.A., Semenova Yu.A., Muraev А.A., Ryabova V.M., Ivanov S.Yu. The use of osteoplastic material,containing vascular endothelial growth factor, in case of socket preservation. The Journal of scientific articles «Health and Education Millennium». 2016; no. 18 (1): 116–123 (in Russian).
9. Canullo L., Del Fabbro M., Khijmatgar S., Panda S., Ravidà A., Tommasato G. et al. Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2022; no. 26 (1): 141–158. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04248-1
10. Atieh M.A., Alsabeeha N.H., Payne A.G., Ali S., Faggion C.M.J., Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; no. 4 (4): 1–75. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3
11. Couso-Queiruga E., Stuhr S., Tattan M., Chambrone L., Avila-Ortiz G. Post-extraction dimensional changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2021; no. 48 (1): 126–144. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13390
12. Sykes L.M., Charles B., Karmisha N. Alveolar bone resorption following tooth extraction characteristically illustrated. South African Dental Journal. 2021; p. 545–549.
13. Jonasson G., Skoglund I., Rythen M. The rise and fall of the alveolar process: Dependency of teeth and metabolic aspects. Arch Oral Biol. 2018; no. 96: 195–200. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.09.016
14. Srinivas B., Das P., Rana M.M., Qureshi A.Q., Vaidya K.C., Ahmed Raziuddin S.J. Wound Healing and Bone Regeneration in Postextraction Sockets with and without Platelet-rich Fibrin. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018; no. 8 (1): 28–34. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_153_17
15. Avila-Ortiz G., Gonzalez-Martin O., Couso-Queiruga E., Wang H.L. The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol. 2020; no. 91 (3): 283–288. doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0566
16. Araujo M.G., Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; no. 32 (2): 212–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005. 00642.x
17. Mardas N., Macbeth N., Donos N., Jung R.E., Zuercher A.N. Is alveolar ridge preservation an overtreatment? Periodontol 2000. 2023; no. 93 (1): 289–308. doi: 10.1111/prd.12508