Method for quantitative assessment of surgical wound healing (for example, the hole of a removed tooth). Part I

Relevance. Surgical stages of the dental implant restoration are an indispensable part of the treatment procedures. However, underestimation of residual/ available alveolar bone volume after tooth extraction may challenge implantation planning. Socket healing process might depend on either a surgical technique, or local or systemic preexisting factors, that this study should present as quantitative data. Purpose is to develop a technique for quantitative assessment of a surgical wound healing, e.g. an extraction socket.

Materials and methods. The study included 42 patients after extraction of different teeth during the preparatory procedures for further dental arch restoration with implants. Follow-ups, clinical data, laboratory and radiographic findings determined clinical, radiographic, and information values – dependent and independent variables as quantifiable clinical parameters – biomarkers; they were statistically analyzed.

Results. The conducted analysis revealed correlation dependence between selected parameters. Highly significant interrelationship allowed calculating the overall success rate of wound/ socket healing after tooth extraction. A regression model was developed to explain 76% healing success rate.

Conclusion. Thus, factors and conditions determining the healing of a surgical bone wound, e.g. an extraction socket, consistently affect each other. Numerical sequences of real-life processes characterize the extent and highly significant interrelations and allow predicting the mutual impact of the factors.

1. Volkov, N.M. Physiologyof bone metabolism and mechanisms of bone metastases development. 2011;3:97-98. (In Russ.). Available at: https://practicaloncology.ru/articles/161.pdf.

2. Don, E.S., Tarasov, A.V., Epshtein, O.I., Tarasov, S.A. The biomarkers in medicine: search, choice, study and validation. Klinicheskaya Laboratornaya Diagnostika (Russian Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics). 2017;62(1):52-59. (In Russ.). http://dx.doi.org/10.18821/0869-2084-2017-62-1-52-59.

3. Kudishina, M.M., Kozlova, I.V., Pahomova, A.L. Biomarkers of the inflammatory bowel diseases. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;157(9):4-9. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-157-9-4-9.

4. Misch C.E. Dental implant prosthetics. Moscow: Read Elsevier; 2010. 615 p. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19555232.

5. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2001;69(3):89-95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.

6. Caplanis N. Extraction defect management: the use of ovate pontics to preserve gingival architecture. Academy of Osseointegration newsletter 2004;15(4):8. Available at: https://www.cda.org/Portals/0/journal/journal_112005.pdf.

7. Caplanis N., Kan J.Y., Lozada J.L. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and Management. Inter. J of Clinical Implant Dentistry. 2009;1(1):111. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10004-1001.