Search

Objectives To evaluate minimally invasive restorations' capacity to mask discolored teeth and explore the impact of ceramic thickness, translucency, and cement color. Materials and Methods Twenty‐four assessment pairs of naturally colored and discolored bovine dentin samples were formed, using lithium disilicate specimens in six different thicknesses (0.3–0.8 mm), two different translucencies (high, low), and two cements (transparent, tooth‐colored). Evaluators assessed the color differences in each assessment pair, and the threshold for detecting a color difference was determined using sequential testing and the Bonferroni‐Holm method. Results A thickness of 0.6 mm effectively masked color differences using high translucent ceramic with transparent cement, detectable differences were still observed at 0.7/0.8 mm. A threshold thickness of 0.4 mm was seen using high translucent ceramic and tooth‐colored cement, with color differences still discernible at 0.5 and 0.8 mm. A threshold thickness of 0.4 mm was detected using low translucent ceramic and transparent cement, while detectable differences persisted at 0.5, 0.7, and 0.8 mm. A 0.5 mm threshold thickness was observed when using low translucent ceramic and tooth‐colored cement, and no detectable color differences were detected beyond this thickness. Conclusions Masking can be achieved with a thickness of 0.4–0.5 mm using a low translucent material and tooth‐colored cement. Clinical Significance Understanding the impact of ceramic thickness, translucency, and cement color can aid clinicians in making informed decisions for achieving the best esthetic outcomes while preserving tooth structure. Effective masking can be accomplished with ceramic thicknesses starting at 0.4 mm, especially when employing a low translucent material and tooth‐colored cement. However, clinicians should be aware that discolorations may still be detectable in certain scenarios when using minimally invasive lithium disilicate restorations.

Objectives: The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of implant treatments.Materials and Methods: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future research, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.Results: Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augmented sites were

OBJECTIVES: The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of implant treatments.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future research, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.RESULTS: Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augm

OBJECTIVES The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of implant treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future research, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augmented sites were more

AIM To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing. METHODS An electronic search was conducted (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Epistemonikos, clinical trials registries) with a focused PICO question: In partially edentulous patients with missing single (or multiple) teeth undergoing dental implant therapy (P), do AM iFDPs (I) compared to SM iFDPs (C) result in improved clinical performance (O)? Included were studies comparing AM to SM iFDPs (randomized clinical trials, prospective/retrospective clinical studies, case series, in vitro studies). RESULTS Of 2'184 citations, no clinical study met the inclusion criteria, whereas six in vitro studies proved to be eligible. Due to the lack of clinical studies and considerable heterogeneity across the studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. AM iFDPs were made of zirconia and polymers. For SM iFDPs, zirconia, lithium disilicate, resin-modified ceramics and different types of polymer-based materials were used. Performance was evaluated by assessing marginal and internal discrepancies and mechanical properties (fracture loads, bending moments). Three of the included studies examined the marginal and internal discrepancies of interim or definitive iFDPs, while four examined mechanical properties. Based on marginal and internal discrepancies as well as the mechanical properties of AM and SM iFDPs, the studies revealed inconclusive results. CONCLUSION Despite the development of AM and the comprehensive search, there is very limited data available on the performance of AM iFDPs and their comparison to SM techniques. Therefore, the clinical performance of iFDPs by AM remains to be elucidated.

AIM The aim of this investigation was to estimate the prevalence, severity and extent of mid-buccal gingival recessions (GRs; classified according to the 2018 Classification System) and to identify their risk indicators in the South American population. MATERIALS AND METHODS Epidemiological data from two cross-sectional studies-performed on 1070 South American adolescents and 1456 Chilean adults-were obtained. All participants received a full-mouth periodontal examination by calibrated examiners. GR prevalence was defined as the presence of at least one mid-buccal GR ≥ 1 mm. GRs were also categorized into different recession types (RTs) according to the 2018 World Workshop Classification System. Analyses for RT risk indicators were also performed. All analyses were carried out at the participant level. RESULTS The prevalence of mid-buccal GRs was 14.1% in South American adolescents and 90.9% in Chilean adults. In South American adolescents, the prevalence of RTs was 4.3% for RT1 GRs, 10.7% for RT2 GRs and 1.7% for RT3 GRs. In Chilean adults, the prevalence of RT1 GRs was 0.3%, while the prevalence of RT2 and RT3 GRs was 85.8% and 77.4%, respectively. Full-Mouth Bleeding Score (FMBS; <25%) was associated with the presence of RT1 GRs in adolescents. The risk indicators for RT2/RT3 GRs mainly overlapped with those for periodontitis. CONCLUSIONS Mid-buccal GRs affected 14.1% of South American adolescents, whereas they affected most of the Chilean adult population (>90%). While RT1 GRs are more commonly observed in a non-representative cohort of South American adolescents (when compared to Chilean adults), the majority of Chilean adults exhibit RT2/RT3 GRs.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes dee

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare changes in soft and hard tissue and the histologic composition following early implant placement in sites with alveolar ridge preservation or spontaneous healing (SH), as well as implant performance up to 1 year after crown insertion. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with either intact buccal bone plates or dehiscence of up to 50% following single-tooth extraction of incisors, canines, or premolars were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to undergo one of three procedures: deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C alone, or SH. At 8 weeks, implant placement was carried out, and cone-beam computed tomography scans and impressions were obtained for profilometric analysis. Patients were followed up after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure. RESULTS: Within the first 8 weeks following tooth extraction, the median height of the buccal soft tissue contour changed by -2.11 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -1.62 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.93 mm for the SH group. The corresponding height of the buccal mineralized tissue changed by -0.27 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -2.73 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.48mm for the SH group. The median contour changes between crown insertion and 1 year were -0.19 mm in the DBBM-C/CM group, -0.09 mm in the DBBM-C group, and -0.29 mm in the SH group. CONCLUSIONS: Major vertical and horizontal ridge contour changes occurred, irrespective of the treatment modality, up to 8 weeks following tooth extraction. The DBBM-C/CM preserved more mineralized tissue throughout this period, despite a substantial reduction in the overall contour. All 3 protocols led to stable tissues for up to 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the volumetric changes and peri-implant health at implant sites with and without previous soft tissue grafting over a 12-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received dental implants and simultaneously guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone (15-25) for dental rehabilitation. Three months following implant placement, 8 patients (test) received an additional subepithelial connective tissue graft, whereas 10 patients (control) did not receive any additional treatment. One week after prothesis delivery and at the 5 and 12 years follow-up examination, impressions were taken. Obtained casts were processed for profilometric and linear analyses. The mean distance (MD) in the mid-buccal area between the two surfaces was considered the primary outcome. Peri-implant health was assessed based on clinical and radiographic data. RESULTS: Nine female and 7 male patients were re-assessed after a median follow-up time of 144.5 months (Min: 114.8; Max: 213.0). The median reduction of MD amounted to -0.81 mm (Min: -1.39; Max: 0.52) in the test group and -0.56 mm (Min: -0.93; Max: 0.11) in the control group, (intergroup comparison p = .607, CI 95%: -0.760/0.530). None of the implants was diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Six tests and two control implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (p = .103). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of included patients, similar results in terms of volumetric, linear changes, and peri-implant conditions could be detected at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting over a period of 12 years.

BACKGROUND Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG. METHODS Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments. CONCLUSION Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading.

OBJECTIVES To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes.

The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. Comprehensive and systematic literature searches were performed until December 2021. A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria (PICO): In patients with dental implants undergoing soft tissue augmentation (P), do soft tissue substitutes (I) compared to autogenous soft tissue graft (SCTG [subepithelial connective tissue graft]) (C) limit the post-operative morbidity and other patient reported-outcomes measures (O). Randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective-, retrospective- and case-series studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible and the results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 29 clinical studies were included. For mucosal thickness gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 14.91 Visual Analog Scale [VAS] units; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.42-23.40; P < .0006) based on a 0-100 VAS scale. Based on a 0-10 VAS scale, a borderline significance of pain reduction was found when soft tissue substitutes were applied (n = 4; WMD = 1.62 VAS units; 95% CI 0.01-3.23; P = .05). For keratinized tissue gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception after keratinized tissue augmentation compared to SCTG based on a 0-100 VAS scale (n = 2; WMD = 21.43 VAS units; 95% CI 12.58-30.28; P < .0001). Based on the 0-10 VAS scale, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain as compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 1.65 VAS units; 95% CI 0.66-2.64; P = .001). Regarding pain medication, soft tissue substitutes required less painkillers (n = 6; WMD = 1.56 tablets; 95% CI 1.22-1.91; P < .00001) after soft tissue augmentation. The surgery time was significantly reduced when soft tissue substitut