Peri-Implant Health and Esthetic Challenges After Extraction
A commentary on the routine use of alveolar ridge preservation procedures
Sonia Leziy, DDS
Following tooth extraction, whether clinicians are planning implant treatment or other fixed or removable restorative options, there are many things to consider and sometimes difficult decisions to make to compensate for anticipated or potential bone and gingival tissue changes. When planning the procedures required to compensate for ridge remodeling, root size and position are important, but phenotypic variations should also be considered. The peri-implant phenotype encompasses the keratinized mucosal width, mucosal thickness, supracrestal tissue height, and of relevance to this subject, the peri-implant morphotype (ie, bone thickness).1,2 Even when managed with minimally invasive and meticulous surgery, bone loss and changes in the soft-tissue contour can occur following extraction, with or without concomitant implant placement. This is especially true when the phenotype is thin. How can we stop structural changes from occurring, or at least minimize their impact on implant success/survival, and produce the best esthetic results possible other than through extraction-timed bone grafting?
Alveolar Ridge Preservation Procedures
When replacing a failing tooth with an implant-supported restoration, many surgical and restorative procedures can influence tissue stability, including the timing of the implant placement and restoration placement relative to extraction, partial extraction therapy procedures to minimize bundle bone changes,3-6 soft-tissue augmentation to enhance volume and quality,7-9 and the design of the transmucosal prosthetic components to support the soft tissue and protect the bone via critical/subcritical contour, acute versus obtuse emergence angle, and abutment length.10-14 When tooth extraction does not leave an environment suitable for immediate implant placement, clinicians routinely perform socket preservation procedures, more appropriately referred to as alveolar ridge preservation procedures, to compensate for the expected biologic impact associated with bundle bone changes.15,16The goal of alveolar ridge preservation is to reduce the complexity of future implant placement and esthetic problems associated with extraction-induced bone loss. Although the research supporting the use of alveolar ridge preservation is extensive, few studies assess the long-term results of implant treatment at these sites. However, some more current studies clearly document the failure of these procedures in achieving complete preservation of the ridge dimension. Instead, they have found that some degree of remodeling generally occurs that results in the need for additional bone and soft-tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement.17-19 Considering these findings and the associated costs of repeated bone grafting procedures, the question of whether or not alveolar ridge preservation procedures should be routinely performed is increasingly posed. In response to the question of whether or not ridge preservation procedures are potentially "overtreatment," Marda and colleagues provide evidence to support ridge preservation while also highlighting some of the reasons why there is debate regarding its routine application.20
Evidence Against Ridge Preservation
Some studies, even those that are supportive of ridge preservation, have presented some, albeit limited, evidence that placing implants into biomaterials may be associated with a higher risk for peri-implantitis in some clinical scenarios (eg, mandibular grafted sockets, grafted type III sockets).21 It is also important to recognize that ridge preservation procedures do not accelerate bone healing or improve the quality of bone. Depending on the graft material used, they may in fact interfere with new bone formation.22,23 The term "perigraftitis" was coined by Do and Cobb in a case report that recognized a risk for peri-implant complications associated with the placement of implants in sites that were previously grafted with low substitution products.24
There is limited literature focusing on the financial implications of multiphase augmentation procedures for patients or the possibility that peri-implant complications may be associated with prior alveolar ridge preservation procedures. Although many factors may contribute to peri-implant diseases, including the patient's systemic health, microbiome, and immune response, as well as surgical or restorative issues, the increasing incidence of peri-implant disease should motivate us to analyze our protocols to better understand the risks associated with our clinical decisions. Because the majority of alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement studies document short-term follow-up periods, we should question whether late complications such as peri-implantitis could be linked to the "overuse" of alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
Proceeding Judiciously
Advocating for more careful case selection for ridge preservation is important. As stated in some of the previously referenced studies, we need to define in what scenarios alveolar ridge preservation will improve treatment outcomes when compared with unassisted socket healing. Clinical situations that may not warrant ridge preservation include those involving a thick bone morphotype, intact bone walls, a favorable relationship between the bone crest and soft-tissue margin, and conservative extractions. Unnecessary ridge preservation procedures may also be avoided through the identification of cases that may be better treated with immediate implant placement with simultaneous augmentation to support the bone and soft tissues. Although there are numerous factors that can contribute to bone loss following tooth extraction and to bone loss around implants (eg, peri-implantitis), when treatment planning implant-based rehabilitations, clinicians should try to "keep it as simple as possible whenever possible." We have the responsibility of qualifying that every procedure, in this case alveolar ridge preservation, will reduce the future treatment complexity and improve the outcome while being sensitive to the long-term impact of our decisions on implant survival and success.
About the Author
Sonia Leziy, DDS
Periodontist
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
References
1. Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, Wang HL. The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol. 2020;91(3):283-288.
2. Wang I-C, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang H-L. The peri-implant phenotype and implant esthetic complications. Contemporary overview. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33:212-223.
3. Helsham RW. Some observations on the subject of roots of teeth retained in the jaws as a result of incomplete exodontia. Australian Dental Journal. 1960;5:70-77.
4. Hürzeler MB, et al. The socket-shield technique: a proof-of-principle report. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37(9):855-862.
5. Atieh MA, et al. The socket shield technique for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33(8):1186-1200.
6. Zhang A, et al. Could the socket shield technique be better than conventional immediate implantation? A meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(2):1173-1182.
7. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM. Soft tissue changes after connective tissue grafts around immediately placed and restored dental implants in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32(3):280-290.
8. Valles C, et al Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures on tissue thickening around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(Suppl 23):72-99.
9. Cairo F, et al. Surgical procedures for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(6):1262-1270.
10. González-Martín O, et al. Contour management of implant restorations for optimal emergence profiles: guidelines for immediate and delayed provisional restorations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020;40(1):61-70.
11. Atieh MA, et al. Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(5):840-852.
12. Mattheos N, et al. Impact of design elements of the implant supracrestal complex (ISC) on the risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A critical review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32(Suppl 21):181-202.
13. Souza AB, et al. Histological and micro-CT analysis of peri-implant soft and hard tissue healing on implants with different healing abutments configurations. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018;29(10):1007-1015.
14. Han JW, Han JW, Pyo SW, Kim S. Impact of profile angle of CAD-CAM abutment on the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single-tooth posterior restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2023:S0022-3913(23)00780-1.
15. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(2):212-218.
16. Chappuis V et al. Ridge alterations post-extraction in the esthetic zone: A 3D analysis with CBCT. J Dent Res. 2013;92(12 Suppl):195S-201S.
17. Mardas N, et al. Does ridge preservation following tooth extraction improve im- plant treatment outcomes: a systematic review: group 4: therapeutic concepts & methods. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):180-201.
18. Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):195-223.
19. MacBeth ND, Donos N, Mardas N. Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single-blind controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(7):681-699.
20. Mardas N, et al. Is alveolar ridge preservation an overtreatment? Periodontol 2000. 2023;93(1):289-308.
21. Buonocunto N, et al. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation on peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence: A multicenter, cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(6):1044-1055.
22. De Risi V, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of histological and histomorphometrical data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):50-68.
23. Canellas J, et al. Histomorphometric evaluation of different grafting materials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(6):797-810.
24. Do JH, Cobb CM. Perigraftitis and implant therapy: A case report. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2023. doi:10.1002/cap.10271.
