Search

Background and Objectives: The use of biomaterials in dentistry is extremely common. From a commercial perspective, different types of osteoconductive and osteoinductive biomaterials are available to clinicians. In the field of osteoconductive materials, clinicians have biomaterials made of heterologous bones at their disposal, including biomaterials of bovine, porcine, and equine origins, and biomaterials of natural origin, such as corals and hydroxyapatites. In recent years, it has become possible to synthesize nano-Ha and produce scaffolds using digital information. Although a large variety of biomaterials has been produced, there is no scientific evidence that proves their absolute indispensability in terms of the preservation of postextraction sites or in the execution of guided bone regeneration. While there is no scientific evidence showing that one material is better than another, there is evidence suggesting that several products have better in situ permanence. This article describes a preliminary study to evaluate the histological results, ISQ values, and prevalence of nano-HA. Materials and Methods: In this study, we planned to use a new biomaterial based on nanohydroxyapatite for implantation at one postextraction site; the nano-HA in this study was NuvaBONE (Overmed, Buccinasco, Milano, Italy). This is a synthetic bone graft substitute that is based on nanostructured biomimetic hydroxyapatite for application in oral–maxillofacial surgery, orthopedics, traumatology, spine surgery, and neurosurgery. In our pilot case, a patient with a hopeless tooth underwent extraction, and the large defect remaining after the removal of the tooth was filled with nano-HA to restore the volume. Twelve months later, the patient was booked for implant surgery to replace the missing tooth. At the time of the surgery, a biopsy of the regenerated tissue was taken using a trephine of 4 mm in the inner side and 8 mm deep. Results: The histological results of the biopsy showed abundant bone formation, high values of ISQ increasing from the insertion to the prosthetic phase, and a good reorganization of hydroxyapatite granules during resorption. The implant is in good function, and the replaced tooth shows good esthetics. Conclusions: The good results of this pilot case indicate starting the next Multicentric study to have more and clearer information about this nanohydroxyapatite (NH) compared with control sites.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in addition to coronally advanced flap (CAF) for the treatment of both single and multiple gingival recessions (GRs) compared to the CAF alone and to the adjunct of connective tissue graft (CTG). Root coverage outcomes using platelet concentrates have gained increased interest. In particular, it has been suggested that adding L-PRF to CAF may provide further benefits in the treatment of GRs. Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RTCs) investigating root coverage outcomes with CAF + L-PRF. The outcomes of interest included mean root coverage (mRC), recession reduction, keratinized tissue width (KTW) gain, gingival thickness (GT) gain, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROms) such as pain perception and discomfort. Results: A total of 275 patients and 611 surgical sites were analyzed. L-PRF in adjunct to single CAF seems to show statistically significant results regarding clinical attachment level (CAL) with a weighted means (WM) 0.43 95% CI (−0.04, 0.91), p < 0.0001, GT (WM 0.17 95% CI (−0.02, 0.36), p < 0.0001, and mRC (WM 13.95 95% CI (−1.99, 29.88) p < 0.0001, compared to single CAF alone. Interesting results were obtained from the adjunct of PRF to multiple CAF with respect to multiple CAF alone with an increase in the mRC WM 0.07 95% CI (−30.22, 30.35), p = 0.0001, and PPD change WM 0.26 95% CI (−0.06, 0.58), p < 00001. On the other hand, no statistically significant data were obtained when L-PRF was added to single or multiple CAF combined with CTG according to the included outcomes such as mRC (p = 0.03 overall). Conclusions: L-PRF is a valid alternative to CAF alone. L-PRF compared to CTG in single and multiple CAF showed statistically significant results regarding pain perception and discomfort PROms (p < 0.0001). However, CTG remains the gold standard for treating gingival recession.