Clinical benefits of ridge preservation for implant placement compared to natural healing in maxillary teeth: A retrospective study

Abstract

AIM:

The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine clinical benefits of ridge preservation in terms of surgical invasiveness of implant placement compared to natural healing in the maxilla.

MATERIALS & METHODS:

This study included 178 patients with 206 implants placed at ridge-preserved sites and 493 patients with 656 implants placed at naturally healed sites in maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Patient- and implant-related data were collected from electronic dental records including additional augmentation procedures performed before or during implant placement and surgical complications. Cumulative survival rate was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. The annual peri-implant marginal bone loss between the two groups was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS:

The follow-up period was 24.4 ± 18.1 months (mean ± standard deviation) for ridge-preserved sites and 45.7 ± 29.6 months for naturally healed sites. Sinus augmentation was performed at similar frequencies in the two groups, but lateral approach was applied significantly more at naturally healed sites (37.2%) than ridge-preserved sites (8.3%, p ≤ .001). There was no intergroup difference in the cumulative survival rate or annual peri-implant marginal bone loss.

CONCLUSION:

Ridge preservation can be clinically beneficial for minimizing the invasiveness of implant surgery by simplifying the procedure when sinus augmentation is expected in the maxilla.