Search

Background: Implant rehabilitation of posterior mandibular defects is frequently associated to a horizontal bone loss. There exist several regenerative techniques to supply this bone deficiency, one of which is the Periosteal Pocket Flap Technique (PPF) proposed by Steigmann et al. to treat small horizontal bone defects. The present study proposes a modification of this technique based on the concurrent use of PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of the PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and PRGF in comparison with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures., Methods: Nine patients were enroled in the study (7 women and 2 men, mean age: 53 ± 2.74 years) and allocated to PPF or GBR. In both groups implant placement was performed simultaneously to bone regeneration. Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing. Moreover, horizontal bone gain (mm), graft surface area (mm2) and graft volume (mm3) were evaluated., Results: Nine surgeries were performed: 6 PPF and 3 GBR. Regarding clinical outcomes, operative time was significative greater in GBR group than in PPF group (51.67 ± 3.51 min vs. 37 ± 5.69 min; p = 0.008). Postoperative pain was higher in GBR compared to PPF (p = 0.011). Regarding radiographical results, there were not significant differences in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 ± 1.8 mm; GBR: 9.28 ± 0.42 mm), surface area (PPF: 693.33 ± 118.73 mm 2 ; GBR: 655.61 ± 102.43 mm 2 ), and volume (PPF: 394.97 ± 178.72 mm 3 ; GBR: 261.66 ± 118 mm 3 ) between groups., Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates that the combination of autograft/xenograft and PRGF in PPF technique is a simpler, cheaper, and faster technique than GBR technique for achieving moderate lateral bone augmentation in implant treatment. Future randomised clinical studies are needed to confirm the results., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy of a gel containing propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E as adjuvant to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM)., Background: Propolis has anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effect that may improve peri-implant health., Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was performed on patients with at least one implant with PM. Participants received a professional prophylaxis and were instructed to use either test or a control gel as toothpaste three times/day for 1 month. Clinical and microbiological parameters were evaluated. PM resolution was considered in absence of bleeding on probing (BOP). Data were analysed with Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests., Results: Forty-six patients participated (23 in each group). After treatment, 26.1% of test patients showed complete PM resolution versus 0% in control group (p = .02). Significant reductions were observed in plaque index (p = .03), BOP (p = .04) and probing depths (p = .027) in test compared with control group. The reduction in Tannerella forsythia was statistically greater in test than in control group at 1-month follow-up (p = .02). Porphyromonas gingivalis was statistically reduced in test group from baseline to 1-month follow-up (p = .05)., Conclusion: Test gel clinically improved PM and showed certain antimicrobial effect after 1 month in comparison with control group. Further long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these results., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of implant therapy in a cohort of immunosuppressed renal transplant patients compared with a matched control group., Material and Methods: Pharmacologically immunosuppressed renal transplant patients received dental implant treatment between 2001 and 2011. Periodontal, clinical and radiographic parameters were prospectively measured with a mean follow-up of 116.8 months (range from 84 to 192 months). A matched controlled non-transplant sample receiving similar implant treatment in the same time was included as a control group., Results: Implant survival rate was over 98% in both test and control groups (100% and 98.84%, respectively). Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 46.80% of the implants in the study group and in 48.80% in the control group. Peri-implantitis occurred in 5.10% of the implants in the study group and in 8.10% of the controls. Wound healing and post-operative pain were similar in both groups., Conclusions: Despite the limitations of this study, pharmacological immunosuppression in renal transplant patients did not affect implant outcomes. Renal transplant patients should be carefully controlled periodically after implant treatment., Clinical Implications: The results from this investigation justify the use of dental implants for the dentalrehabilitation of immunosuppressed patients after renal transplantation provided they follow the necessarylong-term monitoring and regular maintenance of their oral and systemic health., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the primary and secondary stability of dental implants placed at sites prepared with piezoelectric bone surgery (PBS) and conventional drilling (CD). The PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched without date or language restriction up to June 2017. Controlled clinical trials in which each patient received implants placed at sites prepared with both PBS and CD were selected. Implant stability had to be measured on day 0 and during the osseointegration period. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed to compare primary stability (on day 0) and secondary stability (after 2 and 3months) between the two groups. The studies included were determined to have a high risk of bias. There was no significant difference between the two groups for primary stability (on day 0) (P=0.51). After 2 and 3months, secondary stability was statistically higher in implants placed with PBS preparation (P=0.04 and P=0.01, respectively). The implant survival rate was 97.5% in the CD group and 100% in the PBS group. PBS preparation improves secondary stability after 2 and 3months in comparison to CD, with similar implant survival rates. Further studies are needed to determine whether implant osseointegration periods could be shortened with PBS preparation., (Copyright © 2018 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The main objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implant therapy in liver transplant patients (LTP). The secondary goal was to assess several implant- and patient-dependent variables, such as peri-implantitis (PI), peri-implant mucositis (PIM), bone loss (BL), and immediate postoperative complications., Material and Methods: Two groups, including 16 pharmacologically immunosuppressed LTP and 16 matched controls, received 52 and 54 implants, respectively, between 1999 and 2008. After evaluating the postoperative healing, a mean follow-up of more than 8 years was carried out, and radiographic, clinical, and periodontal parameters were recorded to evaluate implant survival and implant- and patient-dependent outcomes., Results: The early postsurgical complications were similar in both groups. Implant survival rate was 100% in the LTP group and 98.15% in the CG. PIM was diagnosed in 35.42% of the implants and 64.29% of the patients of LTP group (LTPG) and in 43.40% of the implants and 56.25% of the patients in the CG. PI was detected in 4.17% of the implants and 7.10% of the patients in the LTPG and in 9.43% of the implants and 18.80% of the patients in the CG., Conclusion: Pharmacologically immunosuppression in liver transplant patients was not a risk factor for implant failure, nor for the incidence of peri-implant diseases. Liver transplant is not a contraindication for dental implant treatment, although these patients should be carefully monitored during follow-up care., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem that is growing in prevalence and is associated with severe complications. During the progression of the disease, a majority of CKD patients suffer oral complications. Dental implants are currently the most reliable and successful treatment for missing teeth. However, due to complications of CKD such as infections, bone lesions, bleeding risks, and altered drug metabolism, dental implant treatment for renal failure patients on dialysis is more challenging. In this review, we have summarized the characteristics of CKD and previous publications regarding dental treatments for renal failure patients. In addition, we discuss our recent research results and clinical experience in order to provide dental implant practitioners with a clinical guideline for dental implant treatment for renal failure patients undergoing hemodialysis.