Ridge Changes After Extraction
Nov 09, 2026Plan for the site you're leaving behind
Key takeaway
After extraction, ridge width decreases during healing. A review allowing follow-up from 2 to 12 months found a pooled average 2.73 mm loss at non-molar sites measured clinically after unassisted healing. The studies did not all measure at the same time, so this is not a fixed 6-month result or a prediction for your patient. [1]
Actionable tips
+ Agree on the replacement plan before extraction. [4]
+ Assess the socket walls before and after extraction. [4]
+ Explain that ridge preservation may reduce dimensional loss, but cannot guarantee that further grafting will be unnecessary. [2], [3]
When you're planning an extraction, it's easy to focus on getting the tooth out. Give the site you're leaving behind some attention too. Your patient's replacement preferences belong in that conversation from the start. [4]
What does 2.73 mm actually tell you?
Couso-Queiruga and colleagues' systematic review included 28 articles, with 20 contributing to quantitative analyses. For non-molar sites measured clinically after unassisted socket healing, the pooled average horizontal reduction from extraction to final follow-up was 2.73 mm (95% confidence interval 2.36–3.11 mm). The review required follow-up of at least 2 months (8 weeks) and no more than 12 months (52 weeks). Healing intervals varied between the contributing studies; the pooled figure does not describe one standard time point. [1]
Keep the qualifiers attached to that number: non-molar sites, clinical measurements, unassisted healing and variable follow-up. It isn't a universal figure for every extraction, and that confidence interval describes uncertainty around the pooled average, not the range you should expect in an individual patient.
The practical message is straightforward. Healing involves a change in ridge dimensions. Discuss it before treatment rather than presenting the pooled average as a prediction afterwards. [1]
Where ridge preservation fits
The next question is whether doing something at the extraction appointment can limit that change.
The 2021 Cochrane review included 16 randomized trials involving 426 adults and 524 extraction sites. In six trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, the pooled results favoured grafting by about 1.18 mm for width and 1.35 mm for height. Both findings were rated very low certainty. [2]
The review did not establish a clear difference in the need for additional augmentation or implant failure. Those outcomes had fewer studies and substantial uncertainty. Avoid turning a dimensional result into a promise that an implant will succeed or that the patient won't need another graft. [2]
A newer review adds perspective
Zahedah and Dinç's September 2026 review included 28 direct-comparison reports, with 20 randomized studies contributing to meta-analyses. Ridge preservation was associated with approximately 1.37 mm less horizontal loss and 1.18 mm less buccal or facial vertical loss. Certainty was low. [3]
Results varied substantially between studies, and the prediction intervals included no benefit. The authors did not establish a reason to graft every socket, a superior intervention, or long-term implant, aesthetic or patient-reported benefit. [3]
These reviews may include some of the same trials. Don't add their patient totals together or treat them as completely independent confirmation. They also use different eligibility criteria and measurements, so the pooled numbers aren't interchangeable.
Bring it back to your patient
The 2019 European Workshop consensus recommends considering the restorative plan alongside the condition of the socket, infection, periodontal phenotype, aesthetic demands and systemic factors. Its evidence largely concerns single-tooth sites, so be cautious about extending it to multiple extractions or major defects. [4]
Here are a few useful checks for your next case:
+ Clarify the goal. Discuss the replacement options, timing, costs and the patient's preferences.
+ Record the site. Document the socket walls and any defect that changes the plan.
+ Discuss preservation case by case. Consider the restorative needs, likely benefit and limitations. Get appropriate support for treatment beyond your scope.
+ Arrange reassessment. Base the next step on healing and the restorative plan. Pooled averages don't give you a universal implant date.
Those are practical applications of the evidence and consensus, rather than a single protocol tested in every clinical situation. [1] [2] [3] [4]
For the next extraction on your schedule, add one question to the plan: what do we need this site to do after the tooth is gone?
For dental professionals. Apply individual clinical judgment, appropriate training and current local guidance.
Explore the Oral Surgery Accelerator course
References
1. Couso-Queiruga E, Stuhr S, Tattan M, Chambrone L, Avila-Ortiz G. Post-extraction dimensional changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48:127–145. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13390.
2. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, Ali S, Faggion CM Jr, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4:CD010176. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3.
3. Zahedah R, Dinç B. Alveolar ridge preservation versus unassisted socket healing following tooth extraction: a systematic review of controlled clinical studies and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026;30:153. doi:10.1007/s10006-026-01642-5.
4. Tonetti MS, Jung RE, Avila-Ortiz G, et al. Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):183–194. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13131.
