Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single-blind...

To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).

Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post-extraction and at 4 months, the mid-buccal and mid-palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross-sectional socket and alveolar-process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post-surgical complications were also recorded.

BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (-0.52 mm ± 0.8/-0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (-2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (-2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid-socket cross-sectional area reduction of 4% (-2.27 mm²  ± 11.89), 1% (-0.88 mm²  ± 15.48) and 13% (-6.93 mm²  ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (-7.36 mm²  ± 10.45), 6% (-7 mm²  ± 18.97) and 11% (-11.32 mm²  ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.

GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.