Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complication at augmented site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower major complications at the augmented site compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the Bio-Oss plus barrier group (one abscess during healing; one chronic perimplant mucositis); none in the Bio-Oss group. No statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Implant failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site led to lower implant failure compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Aesthetics · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After placement of the final restorations the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/10 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 4/10 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Two complications occurred in the group treated with autogenous bone (one abscess that determined the early failure of the implant and one wound dehiscence); none in the control group.
1 study · 26 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Both treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2005b).
1 study · 26 participants
GRADE not reported
Poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by patient (after restoration) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Autogenous bone graft augmentation at the immediate implant site showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower poor aesthetics measured by dentist (3 years) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
After 3 years of loading, the operator judged aesthetics to be poor in 2/7 patients of the Bio-Oss group and in 2/5 of the Bio-Oss plus barrier group; no statistically significant difference.
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Limitation of chewing or swallowing · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
1 finding from 1 review
No adverse events were reported. Six trials (673 participants) reported no adverse events from the use of chlorhexidine gel; one study (Rubio-Palau 2015) reported gastrointestinal discomfort (30, 18%), dizziness (10,…
7 studies
GRADE not reported
Time to initial pain relief (minutes) · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction
Neocone led to higher time to initial pain relief (minutes) compared with alvogyl; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
Tranexamic acid (AMCA cones) showed no clear difference in presence of dry socket compared with placebo (lactose cones); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
1 finding from 1 review
Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
Apernyl (acetylsalicylic acid pellet) showed no clear difference in presence of dry socket compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain (VAS cm) · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction
Advanced platelet rich fibrin (A-PRF) led to lower pain (VAS cm) compared with control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
1 finding from 1 review