The potential benefit of socket preservation therapies was demonstrated result ing in significantly less vertical and horizontal contraction of the alveolar bone crest .
The scientific evidence does not provide clear guidelines in regards to the type of bio material , or surgical procedure , although a significant positive effect of the flapped surgery was observed .
There are no data available to draw conclusions on the consequences of such benefits on the long-term outcomes of implant therapy
OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy in the surgical protocol s design ed for preserving the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction and to evaluate how these techniques affect the placement of dental implants and the final implant supported restoration .
Five-year evaluation of implants placed at extraction and with dehiscences and fenestration defects augmented with ePTFE membranes: results from a prospective multicenter study.
BACKGROUND Barrier membranes have been used to promote bone ingrowth on implants with dehiscences and fenestrations . Membranes also have been used to protect defects adjacent to implants placed at the time of extraction . The concept of guided bone regeneration relates to preferentially allowing cells from bone to migrate into various defects while excluding fibrous tissue and epithelium . The purpose of these procedures is to enhance bone-to-implant contact at the treated sites and to prevent mucosal complications . PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to report clinical outcomes for  implants placed at the time of extraction and augmented with exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( ePTFE )  and followed for 5 years . The outcomes for implants with dehiscences and fenestrations augmented with ePTFE barriers and followed up to 5 years also are reported . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Four treatment centers participated in this study ( Tucson , Gothenburg , Spokane , and Leuven ) . In the extraction group , teeth were removed for varying reasons , and Brånemark implants were placed and stabilized within the host bone . Defects present at the coronal implant aspect were covered with ePTFE barrier membranes . Flaps were rotated to cover the membrane-treated sites . If exposure of the material occurred prior to second-stage surgery , the membranes were removed . Barriers remaining unexposed were removed at second-stage surgery . The implants were followed up to 5 years . In the fenestration and dehiscence group , implants with exposed threads were augmented with ePTFE barrier membranes . The barriers were removed at appropriate intervals , and the patients were followed up to 5 years . Radiographic measurements were made from nonst and ardized periapical radiographs at abutment connection and 1 , 3 , and 5-year follow-up visits . RESULTS Forty patients participated in the extraction group . They received a total of 49 implants . Three implants failed prior to loading . The 5-year cumulative survival rates for implants placed at the time of extraction were 93.9 % and 93.8 % , respectively , for maxillary and m and ibular implants . The average maxillary mesial and distal marginal bone loss ( 1 - 5 yr ) was 0.3 mm ( st and ard deviation [ SD ] = 1.5 ) and 0.3 mm ( SD = 1.0 ) . In m and ibles , the average mesial and distal bone loss ( 1 - 5 yr ) was -0.2 mm ( SD = 0.5 ) and -0.05 mm ( SD = 0.6 ) , respectively . The dehiscence and fenestration group included 44 patients . Twenty-six were followed for up to 5 years . Eight patients experienced total implant failure . For dehiscences and fenestrations , the cumulative survival rates were 76.8 % and 83.8 % for maxillary and m and ibular implants , respectively . The average maxillary mesial and distal bone loss ( 1 - 5 yr ) was 0.4 mm ( SD = 0.8 ) and 0.2 mm ( SD = 0.9 ) , respectively . In m and ibles , the average mesial and distal marginal bone loss was 0.3 mm ( SD = 0.9 ) and 0.3 mm ( SD = 0.8 ) , respectively . CONCLUSIONS Implants placed at the time of extraction and augmented with ePTFE barrier membranes have favorable long-term predictability . On the other h and , long-term evaluation of implant dehiscences and fenestrations augmented with barrier membranes indicates that they have less favorable 5-year survival rates . Membrane augmentation of these may be question ed
The potential benefit of socket preservation therapies was demonstrated result ing in significantly less vertical and horizontal contraction of the alveolar bone crest .
The scientific evidence does not provide clear guidelines in regards to the type of bio material , or surgical procedure , although a significant positive effect of the flapped surgery was observed .
There are no data available to draw conclusions on the consequences of such benefits on the long-term outcomes of implant therapy
OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy in the surgical protocol s design ed for preserving the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction and to evaluate how these techniques affect the placement of dental implants and the final implant supported restoration .