Table 2.
Qualitative results
| Author Year | Gender (M/F) | Age (mean ± SD or range) | Tooth type/location (Ant/Post) | Arch (max/mand) | Follow-up | Test patients treated | Test patients evaluated | Control patients treated | Control patients evaluated | Complications | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative synthesis | ||||||||||||
| Test | Control | |||||||||||
| Wongpairojpanich 2020 | 7/23 | 56.07 ± 11 | 60.73 ± 7.98 | 13/17 | 14/16 | 4 mo | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | No |
B-PPM could potentially be used as an alternative choice for ARP Similar outcomes were observed throughout the evaluation period when compared with commercial d-PTFE membrane |
| Thoma 2020 | 18/18 | A = 53 to 71.5 y B = 55 to 74 y | C = 52 to 71 | A = 16/25 B = 5/8 | 27/9 | 8 w | A = 12 B = 13 | A = 12 B = 13 | C = 11 | C = 11 | No | The thickness of the mucosa in group DBBM-C/CM compared to in group SH, underlines a moderate effect size |
| Sapata 2019 | NR | 43.3 ± 10.3 y | 41.9 ± 11.9 y | 65 A | NR | 4 mo | 41 | 33 | 41 | 33 | No | For main outcome (HWCh) the DBBM group was non-inferior to the DBBM-C group. After 4 months, the use of DBBM was non-inferior to DBBM-C in terms of soft tissue contour changes |
| Fischer 2018 | 16/24 | 55.7 ± 14.85 y | NR | NR | 6 mo | T1 = 10 T2 = 10 T3 = 10 | T1 = 9 T2 = 8 T3 = 10 | 10 | 8 | NR | Three technique result in similar buccal contour change, with smallest changes in T1 | |
| Schnutenhaus 2018 | 29/31 | 24 to 78 y | 19/31 | NR | 6 w | 31 | 31 | 29 | 29 | NR | In the ARP group, there was a statistically significant smaller reduction of the observed soft tissue contour | |
| Tomasi 2018 | 11/16 | 38 to 79 y | 28 P | 16/12 | 6 mo | NR | NR | NR | NR | No | In both the test and control groups, the vertical and horizontal dimension was only modestly reduced between baseline and 6 months | |
| Fickl 2017 | 16/24 | 55.7 ± 14.85 y | NR | NR | 6 mo | NR | NR | NR | NR | No | A and C resulted in significantly less buccolingual dimension loss | |
| Zadeh 2016 | NR | NR | NR | 13/48P | 31/30 | 6 mo | A = 12 t B = 11 t C = 14 t E = 10 t | A = 12 t B = 11 t C = 14 t E = 10 t | D = 14 t | D = 14 t | NR | SocketKAP, with or without ABBM, significantly limited post-extraction ridge contour loss in intact sockets |
| Flugge 2015 | 13/25 | 28 to 78 y | 39/40 | 49/30 | 12 w | 40 teeth | 40 t | 39 t | 39 t | NR | There was a significant difference of the mean dimensional changes: non-augmented sites showing more resorption than augmented sites | |
| Engler-Hamm 2011 | 4/7 | 41.09 ± 14.07 y | 24 P | NR | 6 mo | 11 t | 11 t | 11 t | 11 t | No | MGJ was statistically significantly more coronally displaced in the control group than it was in the test group. Ridge preservation without flap advancement was shown to preserve the buccal keratinized tissue significantly better | |
| Kesteren 2010 | NR | NR | NR | 9 /17 | 21/5 | 6 mo | 14 | 13 | 14 | 11 (13 t) | 1 implant failed | Midbuccal soft tissue margin position shows no significant difference. The same was for interproximal tissue |
| Quantitative analysis | ||||||||||||
| Vance 2004 | 9/15 | 56 ± 14 y | 4/20 | 19/5 | 4 mo | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | NR | Soft tissue thickness not significant difference | |
| Iasella 2003 | 10/14 | 51.5 ± 13.6 y | 25/23 | 18/6 | 6 mo | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | NR | Sites in the RP group lost a slight amount of overlying soft tissue thickness, while those in the EXT group gained about 0.5 mm | |
| Ovcharenko 2020 | 4/16 | 61 ± 10 y | 48 ± 14 y | 10/10 | 16/4 | 4 mo | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | No | Both the PLA and ADMG groups ha significant gain in soft tissue thickness. At 5 mm apical to the crest, PLA group’s gain was significantly greater than ADMG |
| Clementini 2020 | 14/16 | A = 55.5 ± 11.6 B = 52.5 ± 7.5 | C = 50.5 ± 12.2 | 16/14 | 22/8 | 4 mo | 20 | 20 | 10 | 10 | NR | No differences were observed in horizontal changes between the two test treatments and spontaneous healing sites. This lack of difference is related to a significant increase in soft tissue thickness in spontaneous healing sites |
| Song 2020 | 24/11 | 55.3 ± 8.33 y | 50.8 ± 12.6 y | 35 P | NR | 6 mo | 20 | 19 | 20 | 16 | Partial exposure of the bone graft material | The thickness of the mucosa was significantly thinner in ARP group. MGJ moved slightly apically in ARP group and shifted coronally in SH group |
| Hong 2018 | 10/20 | 52.30 ± 17.3 y | 48.50 ± 5.0 | NR | NR | 6 mo | 15 | 14 | 15 | 14 | No | The width of keratinized tissue, the E group gain’s was greater than C group. Same result has found for keratinized thickness |
| Natto 2017 | 17/11 | 25 to 80 y | 30 to 74 y | 11/17 | 23/5 | 4 mo | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | NR | Differences between the two groups were not statistically significant for all clinical soft tissue measurement variables |
| Festa 2013 | 12/18 | 28 to 58 y | 28 to 58 y | NR | NR | 6 mo | 15 t | 15 t | 15 t | 15 t | No | Both treatments equally preserved the baseline level of the free gingival margin at the neighboring teeth after the extractions |
| Barone 2012 | NR | 41.8 ± 14.0 y | 39.3 ± 15.5 y | 58 P | NR | 4 mo | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | NR | Width of keratinized gingiva was better preserved in the test group compared to the control group |
| Schneider 2014 | NR | NR | NR | 17/23 | NR | 6 mo | A = 10 B = 10 C = 10 | A = 9 B = 9 C = 10 | D = 10 | D = 9 | NR | Application of DBBM-C/CMor DBBM-C/PG reduced the amount of volume resorption compared to ß-TCP or spontaneous healing without reaching statistically significant difference |
| Thalmair 2013 | 18/12 | 24 to 72 y | A = 4/4 B = 4/4 C = 2/5 | 24/6 | 4 mo | A = 8 B = 8 C = 7 | A = 8 B = 8 C = 7 | D = 7 | D = 7 | No | Significant differences in dimensional change between the test groups A and B compared with control group D. A significant influence of the soft tissue socket seal leading to a lower degree in shrinkage. The influence of the filler was estimated to be not significant | |