Search

Aim: This study evaluated the impact of the partial exposition of the nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) on microbial colonization during bone healing., Materials and Methods: Patients indicated for tooth extraction were randomized to dPTFE group (n = 22) - tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using an intentionally exposed dPTFE membrane and USH group (n = 22) - tooth extraction and unassisted socket healing. Biofilm samples were collected at the barrier in the dPTFE and on the natural healing site in the USH after 3 and 28 days. Samples from the inner surface of the dPTFE barrier were also collected (n = 13). The microbiome was evaluated using the Illumina MiSeq system., Results: Beta diversity was different from 3 to 28 days in both groups, and at 28 days, different microbial communities were identified between therapies. The dPTFE was characterized by a higher prevalence and abundance of gram-negative and anaerobic species than USH. Furthermore, the inner surface of the dPTFE membrane was colonized by a different community than the one observed on the outer surface., Conclusion: Intentionally exposed dPTFE membrane modulates microbial colonization in the ARP site, creating a more homogeneous and anaerobic community on the inner and outer surfaces of the membrane., Clinical Relevance: DPTFE promoted faster biofilm colonization and enrichment of gram-negative and anaerobes close to the regenerated site in the membrane's inner and outer surfaces. dPTFE membrane can be used exposed to the oral site, but approaches for biofilm control should still be considered. The study was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04329351)., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of a partially exposed non-absorbable membrane (dPTFE) in Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) procedures on clinical, tomographic, immunoenzymatic, implant-related, and patient-centered outcomes., Materials and Methods: Patients with a hopeless maxillary single-rooted tooth demanding rehabilitation with implants were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: dPTFE (n = 22)-tooth extraction followed by ARP using a partially exposed dPTFE membrane; USH (n = 22)-unassisted socket healing. Clinical and tomographic analyses were performed at baseline and after 3 months. After 3 months, patients received one dental implant. Implant stability quotient was obtained following implant placement. Bone-related markers were analyzed in bone biopsies using an immunoenzymatic assay., Results: Greater gain in Keratinized Mucosa Width (KMW) was observed in the dPTFE (1.33 ± 0.98 mm) compared to USH (0.59 ± 0.98 mm) (Mann-Whitney test, Z = 2,28, p < 0.05). USH showed a reduction of pain/discomfort, edema, and interference with daily life from the seventh day (Friedman/Wilcoxon test, maxT = 7.48, 8.00, and 5.92, respectively, p < 0.05). dPTFE presents a reduction of edema and interference with daily life from the 7th day and pain/discomfort from the 14th day (Friedman/Wilcoxon test, maxT = 5.40, 5.26, and 4.78, respectively, p < 0.05). The dPTFE group presented higher pain/discomfort in the 35 and 42 days and higher edema from 7 to 42 days postoperatively than USH group (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). No differences between groups were observed in the tomographic measures, immunoenzymatic analysis, and implant stability (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: dPTFE was superior to USH by increasing KMW gain. However, dPTFE without bone graft presented similar bone loss compared to USH. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization (NCT04329351)., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: The study was aimed at comparing implants installed with guided and conventional surgery., Material and Methods: Twenty-nine total edentulous patients were selected, and maxillary contralateral quadrants were randomly assigned to static computer-aided implant surgery (S-CAIS): flapless computer-guided surgery, and conventional surgery (CS): flap surgery with conventional planning. Tomography scans were performed at baseline and 10 days after the surgery for deviation measurement, and radiography was done at baseline and after 6 and 12 months, for peri-implant bone level (PIBL) analysis. Peri-implant fluid and subgingival biofilm were collected to evaluate bone markers and periodontal pathogens., Results: S-CAIS showed less linear deviation at the apical point and the midpoint and less angular deviation (p < 0.05), with greater depth discrepancy in the positioning of the platform (p < 0.05). Higher values of vertical PIBL were observed for the S-CAIS group at baseline (p < 0.05), while lower values of horizontal PIBL were observed for CS (p < 0.05). Bone markers and Tf presented higher levels in CS (p < 0.05). Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique., Conclusion: However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic levels and bone markers., Clinical Relevance: Evaluating the different implant insertion techniques can guide clinical and surgical regarding the accuracy, the release pattern of bone markers, and the peri-implant bone level., Trial Registration: ReBEC-RBR-8556fzp., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)