Evidence Hub

Dimensional Changes After Different Alveolar Ridge Preservation Techniques for Posterior Region: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

Leticia Sandoli Arroteia, Matheus Paschoaletto Lopes, M. T. Réa, Thalita R. Vieira E. Oliveira, M. L. Oliveira, Marcelo de Faveri, Mauro Pedrine Santamaria, L. Queiroz et al.

Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2025

22 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after tooth extraction aims to maintain ridge dimensions for future implant placement. However, limited evidence is available for posterior sites. We evaluated the dimensional changes in posterior extraction sockets using four approaches: modified free gingival graft (MFGG); MFGG with xenograft (MFGG + XG); guided bone regeneration with titanium membrane and xenograft (TM + XG); and unassisted socket healing (USH). Materials and Methods Patients requiring posterior tooth extraction were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n = 22/group). Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately after operation and at 6 months to assess vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge changes and implant‐related outcomes. Results Significant dimensional changes occurred in all groups (p < 0.05). The TM + XG and MFGG + XG groups showed better preservation of vertical ridge dimensions than the USH and MFGG groups (p < 0.05). Horizontal reductions were significant in all groups (p < 0.05). USH presented the highest sinus floor elevation rate (67% of maxillary cases) and the most frequent use of short implants (< 8.5 mm; 71%). Postoperative pain was significantly greater in the MFGG groups compared to the USH group (p < 0.05). Conclusion Bone grafting with MFGG or a titanium membrane enhanced ridge preservation and reduced the need for additional surgery compared to USH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06081296

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 22 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free