Postextraction ridge preservation by using dense PTFE membranes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Statement of problem The use of dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membranes in alveolar ridge preservation may help reduce the risk of bacterial contamination and infection, maintaining the soft-tissue anatomy. However, systematic reviews on their efficacy in postextraction sites are lacking. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation with dPTFE membranes when used alone or in combination with bone grafting materials in postextraction sites. Material and methods An electronic search up to February 2021 was conducted by using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to detect studies using dPTFE membranes in postextraction sites. An additional manual search was performed in relevant journals. Clinical and radiographic dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge, histomorphometric, microcomputed tomography, implant-related findings, and rate of complications were recorded. One-dimensional meta-analysis was performed to calculate the overall means and 95% confidence intervals (α=.05). Results A total of 23 studies, 14 randomized controlled trials, 4 retrospective cohort studies, 3 case series, and 2 prospective nonrandomized clinical trials, met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the use of dPTFE membranes resulted in a statistically significant (P=.042) increase in clinical keratinized tissue of 3.49 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16, 6.83) when compared with extraction alone. Metaregression showed that the difference of 1.10 mm (95% CI: -0.14, 2.35) in the radiographic horizontal measurements was not significant (P=.082), but the difference of 1.06 mm (95% CI: 0.51, 1.62) in the radiographic vertical dimensional change between dPTFE membranes+allograft and extraction alone was statistically significant (P<.001). Conclusions The use of dPTFE membranes was better than extraction alone in terms of keratinized tissue width and radiographic vertical bone loss.