Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Aim By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes? Materials and methods Parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating >= 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO). Results Twelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions Coverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis.