ABSTRACT
Background:
This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess and compare postoperative swelling and pain in patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation using RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus.
Methods:
A total of 20 patients requiring tooth extraction were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to two groups: Group A received alveolar ridge preservation with RidgeMax Pro and Group B with AlveoGraft Plus. Postoperative swelling was evaluated by measuring facial dimensions using standardized facial photographs at baseline and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the same time points. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA.
Results:
Both RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus demonstrated effective alveolar ridge preservation without any reported complications. In terms of postoperative swelling, Group A (RidgeMax Pro) exhibited significantly lower facial swelling compared to Group B (AlveoGraft Plus) at all time points (P < 0.05). The mean pain scores on the VAS were consistently lower in Group A than in Group B across the assessment time points (P < 0.05). The trend of reduced swelling and pain in Group A persisted throughout the 72-hour follow-up period.
Conclusion:
Alveolar ridge preservation with RidgeMax Pro (Trade Name: RidgeMax Pro) resulted in significantly reduced postoperative swelling and pain compared to AlveoGraft Plus (Trade Name: AlveoGraft Plus).
KEYWORDS: Alveolar ridge preservation, biomaterials, pain, postoperative swelling
INTRODUCTION
Alveolar ridge preservation is a fundamental procedure in dental implantology aimed at maintaining the volume and contour of the alveolar ridge subsequent to tooth extraction.[1] Successful alveolar ridge preservation ensures an adequate foundation for subsequent dental implant placement, thereby enhancing the functional and aesthetic outcomes of implant treatment.[2,3] Among these biomaterials, RidgeMax Pro (Trade Name) and AlveoGraft Plus (Trade Name) have gained attention for their purported benefits in alveolar ridge preservation.[4]
RidgeMax Pro, a commercially available biomaterial, has been designed to enhance bone regeneration and improve the alveolar ridge’s structural integrity following tooth extraction.[5] On the other hand, AlveoGraft Plus is another biomaterial that claims to support bone growth and facilitate tissue regeneration. While these biomaterials offer promise, the extent to which they influence postoperative outcomes, such as swelling and pain, remains an area of investigation.[4]
Postoperative swelling and pain are common concerns following oral surgical procedures, including alveolar ridge preservation.[4] Excessive swelling can lead to discomfort, restricted oral function, and delayed healing, whereas pain negatively impacts the patient’s quality of life during the recovery period.[5] As patient comfort and recovery are pivotal factors in the success of any dental procedure, understanding the differential effects of biomaterials on postoperative swelling and pain is crucial.
To date, limited research has directly compared the impact of RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus on postoperative outcomes. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial aimed to assess and compare the postoperative swelling and pain in patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation using RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
A total of 20 patients requiring tooth extraction and subsequent alveolar ridge preservation were recruited. The inclusion criteria comprised individuals aged 18 to 65 years who required single-tooth extraction with planned implant placement. Exclusion criteria included a history of severe systemic diseases, allergies to the biomaterials, use of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive drugs, and a history of alcohol or substance abuse.
Randomization
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups using a computer-generated randomization sequence. Group A received alveolar ridge preservation using RidgeMax Pro, and Group B received the same procedure with AlveoGraft Plus.
Surgical procedure
All surgical procedures were performed by a single experienced oral surgeon. Tooth extraction was performed following standard clinical protocols. Subsequently, the allocated biomaterial was applied to the extraction socket in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Outcome measures
Postoperative swelling was assessed using standardized facial photographs taken at baseline (preoperatively) and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. The photographs were analyzed using image analysis software to measure facial dimensions and quantify swelling.
Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the same time points (24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively). The VAS is a validated tool where participants rate their pain intensity on a 0-10 scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating the worst imaginable pain. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 22.
RESULTS
Participant characteristics
A total of 20 participants were enrolled in the study, with ten participants in each group (RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus). The mean age of participants was 45.2 years (SD = 6.8), with no significant differences in age or gender distribution between the two groups.
Postoperative swelling
The assessment of postoperative swelling revealed significant differences between the two groups. Table 1 presents the mean changes in facial dimensions (measured using standardized photographs) at different time points.
Table 1.
Post operative swelling assessment
| Time Point (hours) | RidgeMax Pro Group (mm) | AlveoGraft Plus Group (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) |
| 24 | 3.42 (1.20) | 5.78 (1.92) |
| 48 | 4.87 (1.56) | 7.52 (2.15) |
| 72 | 5.68 (1.85) | 8.31 (2.40) |
As shown in Table 1, at 24 hours postoperatively, participants in the RidgeMax Pro group exhibited a mean increase in facial dimensions of 3.42 mm (SD = 1.20), while those in the AlveoGraft Plus group had a mean increase of 5.78 mm (SD = 1.92). This trend persisted at 48 and 72 hours postoperatively, with the RidgeMax Pro group consistently demonstrating lower increases in facial dimensions compared to the AlveoGraft Plus group.
Postoperative pain
Pain scores assessed using the VAS are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.
Post operative pain assessment
| Time Point (hours) | RidgeMax Pro Group (VAS) | AlveoGraft Plus Group (VAS) |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | 2.1 (0.8) | 3.6 (1.2) |
| 48 | 1.8 (0.7) | 4.2 (1.3) |
| 72 | 1.5 (0.6) | 4.7 (1.4) |
Table 2 illustrates that participants in the RidgeMax Pro group reported lower pain scores at all time points compared to those in the AlveoGraft Plus group. At 24 hours postoperatively, the mean pain score for the RidgeMax Pro group was 2.1 (SD = 0.8), while the AlveoGraft Plus group reported a mean score of 3.6 (SD = 1.2). This pattern persisted through the 72-hour follow-up period.
Complications
No complications related to the use of either RidgeMax Pro or AlveoGraft Plus were reported during the study duration. Both biomaterials demonstrated effective alveolar ridge preservation without any adverse events.
DISCUSSION
The present randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the postoperative swelling and pain outcomes in patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation using two different biomaterials: RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus.
Postoperative swelling
The results revealed that the RidgeMax Pro group exhibited significantly lower postoperative swelling compared to the AlveoGraft Plus group at all assessed time points. RidgeMax Pro, with its unique composition and properties, might have contributed to reduced tissue edema and inflammation, leading to less pronounced postoperative swelling.
These findings align with the work of Lee et al.,[2] who reported similar trends in their investigation of biomaterials in alveolar ridge preservation. The study by Wang et al. suggested that the choice of biomaterial could impact tissue healing dynamics and subsequent swelling. Moreover, the anti-inflammatory and tissue-regenerative properties attributed to RidgeMax Pro (Trade Name) might have contributed to the observed reduction in postoperative swelling.[3]
Postoperative pain
Consistent with the results for swelling, participants in the RidgeMax Pro group reported consistently lower pain scores across all assessed time points compared to the AlveoGraft Plus group. This suggests that RidgeMax Pro might exert a positive effect on pain modulation during the initial postoperative period. The potential mechanisms underlying this difference in pain experiences could be attributed to the biomaterial’s impact on tissue inflammation, nerve sensitivity, and wound healing processes.[4]
These findings resonate with previous investigations that have explored pain outcomes in various dental procedures.[5] The consistent pain reduction observed in the RidgeMax Pro group underscores the clinical relevance of biomaterial selection in promoting optimal patient experiences.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present randomized controlled trial demonstrates that alveolar ridge preservation with RidgeMax Pro results in significantly reduced postoperative swelling and pain compared to AlveoGraft Plus. These findings emphasize the potential impact of biomaterial selection on patient comfort and recovery in dental implantology.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Horowitz RA, Mazor Z, Miller RJ, Krauser JT, Prasad HS, Rohrer MD. Clinical evaluation alveograft with a new bioabsorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1995;15:452–9. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lee J, Kim JH, Kim M, Kim JW, Cho DW. Postoperative swelling and pain following alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33:1240–7. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wang HL, Boyapati L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006;15:8–17. doi: 10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moore PA, Hersh EV. Combining ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute pain management after third-molar extractions: Translating clinical research to dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144:898–908. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pietruska M, Pietruski J. Pain perception after surgical extraction of third molars. Pain Res Manag 2020. 2020 2416383. [Google Scholar]
