Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix Versus Free Gingival Graft for Augmenting Peri-Implant Keratinized Mucosa Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There is a growing evidence to suggest augmenting peri-implant keratinized mucosa in the presence of ≤ 2 mm of keratinized mucosa. However, the most appropriate surgical technique and augmentation materials have yet to be defined. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants using free gingival graft (FGG) versus xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) before commencing prosthetic implant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify observational studies comparing implant sites augmented with FGG to those augmented with XCM. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Six studies with 174 participants were included in the present review. Of these, 87 participants had FGG, whereas the remaining participants had XCM. At 6 months, sites augmented with FGG were associated with less changes in the gained width of peri-implant keratinized mucosa compared to those augmented with XCM (mean difference 1.06; 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 2.13; p = 0.05). The difference, however, was marginally significant. The difference between the two groups in changes in thickness of peri-implant keratinized mucosa at 6 months was statistically significantly in favor of FGG. On the other hand, XCM had significantly shorter surgical time, lower postoperative pain score, and higher color match compared to FGG. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, the augmentation of keratinized mucosa using FGG before the placement of the final prosthesis may have short-term positive effects on soft tissue thickness. XCM might be considered in aesthetically demanding implant sites and where patient comfort or shorter surgical time is a priority. The evidence support, however, is of low to moderate certainty; therefore, further studies are needed to support the findings of the present review.

Alveolar ridge preservation versus early implant placement in single non-molar sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following extraction of non-molar teeth in comparison to early implant placement (EIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, patient-reported outcomes, and implant failure rate. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared ARP to EIP. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: A total of 106 studies were identified, of which five studies with 198 non-molar extraction sockets in 198 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in midfacial mucosal margin (mean difference (MD) -0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; p = .03) and ridge width (MD -1.70; 95% CI -3.19 to -0.20; p = .03) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP was also associated with less need for additional augmentation at implant placement, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of non-molar teeth has short-term positive effects on soft tissue contour, mucosal margin and thickness, and alveolar ridge width and height. It can also simplify future implant treatment by minimizing the need for additional augmentation.

Airflowing as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGOUND: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. METHODS: Twenty-six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring nonsurgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months. RESULTS: A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ± 20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved.

Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns Supported by Narrow- or Standard-Diameter Titanium-Zirconia Implants in Posterior Sites: 1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the prosthetic outcomes of screw-retained monolithic zirconia (Zr) single crowns supported by either narrow-diameter (3.3 mm) or standard-diameter (4.1 mm) tissue-level titanium-zirconia (TiZr) implants in posterior sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 18 participants, each with a missing molar or premolar tooth requiring an implantsupported single crown, were randomly assigned to either the test or control group. All participants received screwretained monolithic Zr single crowns supported by single tissue-level TiZr implants. Test group participants received narrow-diameter implants (3.3 mm), whereas control group participants received standard-diameter implants (4.1 mm). A modified version of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria was used to assess the prosthetic outcome across 12 parameters after 1 year of function. Data were analyzed descriptively, and statistical analysis was performed using a statistical software (SPSS, Version 28.0; IBM) with the level of significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 18 single crowns delivered, 16 were available for review at the 1-year follow-up, including 7 in the test group and 9 in the control group. Patient characteristics and crown site distribution were similar, with no significant differences observed between the two groups (chi-square test; P < .05). There were no crown failures, meaning a crown survival rate of 100% was achieved after 1 year. The prosthetic outcome based on USPHS criteria was comparable between the two groups with no significant differences observed (chi-square test; P < .05). There were 19 prosthetic events in total (10 in the test group and 9 in the control group), with no significant differences between the groups (chi-square test; P < .05). Loss of proximal contact was the dominant event, with a total of eight events (three in the test group and five in the control group). Patient satisfaction after 1 year was high in both treatment groups, with no significant differences detected. CONCLUSIONS: Screw-retained monolithic Zr single crowns supported by either narrow- or standard-diameter tissue-level TiZr implants in posterior sites have comparable prosthetic outcomes after 1 year. Long-term results from well-designed trials are still needed to validate the findings of the present study.

Diode laser as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: Arandomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of diode laser (DL) versus SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. METHODS: Participants requiring non-surgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with DL or SI alone. Clinical parameters [full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level] were recorded at baseline, three and 6 months post-treatment. Visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 22 participants with stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without DL resulted in statistically significant reduction in FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits (p = 0.001 to <0.001). The participants in SI/DL group had a greater reduction in the percentage of deep PPDs (≥5 mm) compared to those receiving SI alone, but statistically significant differences between the two groups were not observed (16.40 ± 9.57 vs. 32.50 ± 38.76 at 3 months and 7.20 ± 6.86 vs. 19.50 ± 35.06 at 6 months). The difference in the mean total GOHAI scores was not statistically significant at 6 months with total GOHAI scores of 7.25 ± 2.45 and 5.40 ± 3.06 for SI and SI/DL groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the use of DL as an adjunct to SI in the treatment of stage III/IV periodontitis did not produce significant additional improvement in clinical parameters or patient reported outcomes in the 6-month observation period.

Changes in oral home care and smoking habits during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused disruption in the health behavior in many aspects of life. While hand hygiene was promoted as one of the precautionary measures to mitigate and contain COVID-19, oral health and smoking might have received less attention in the media campaigns. The aim of this study was to examine health behavioral changes in terms of oral home care habits, smoking, and perception of dental care during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey was designed to assess oral home care, smoking habits, and attitude toward dental services of participants aged 18 years and older. The data were collected between September and November 2021. The strength of association between changes in oral home care habits, smoking, and attitude toward invasive/long dental procedures and each variable was measured by χ2 analysis. Estimates of relative risk were also calculated for all variables. Predictors of avoiding dental procedures were estimated by a binary logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 532 participants, based in the United Arab Emirates, took part in this online survey with a response rate of 88.7%. The age of the participants ranged between 18 and 67 with mean age of 34.9 ± 9.0 years. The majority of the participants have adopted changes in their routine oral home care habits, with 82.1% of them changing the toothbrush more frequently. Participants who changed their oral home care habits were more likely to have received sufficient information on the importance of maintaining oral health. Likewise, the changes in smoking habits were significantly associated with receiving information on the relationship between smoking and the severity of the COVID-19 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that positive behavior toward oral home care and smoking was noticed during the pandemic particularly when public receives sufficient and up-to-date information.

Enamel matrix derivative for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this clinical trial were to evaluate the radiographic dimensional changes in alveolar ridge and patient-reported outcomes following tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using either deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) with EMD or DBBM alone. METHODS: Participants requiring at least one posterior tooth extraction and ARP were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: ARP using either DBBM with EMD or DBBM alone. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were recorded immediately prior to extraction and at 6 months. Changes in alveolar ridge height (ARH) and alveolar ridge width (ARW) at 1, 3, and 5 mm were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 18 participants with 25 preserved sites were evaluated. ARH and ARW changed significantly from baseline to 6 months for both treatment groups but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant over the 6-month follow-up period (ARH: DBBM/EMD 1.26 ± 1.53 mm vs. DBBM 2.26 ± 1.60 mm; ARW-1 DBBM/EMD 1.98 ± 1.80 mm vs. DBBM 2.34 ± 1.89 mm). A significant difference, favoring DBBM with EMD group, was observed in percentage of sites that had less than 1 mm loss in ARH (54.5% sites in DBBM/EMD group vs. 14.3% sites in DBBM alone group). The participants' perception of bruising, bleeding, and pain in the first two postoperative days was significantly in favor of DBBM alone group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in radiographic mean measurements of ARH and ARW following ARB with DBBM and EMD or DBBM alone.

Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant restorative emergence angle and profile may have a negative impact on peri-implant marginal bone level and may increase the risk of developing peri-implantitis. However, the role of these prosthetic features on peri-implant health is still unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° in comparison to those with ≤30° in terms of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, periodontal parameters, and prevalence rate of peri-implantitis. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify observational studies that compared implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° to those with ≤30°. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Four studies with 912 dental implants in 397 participants were included in the present review. Of these, 455 implants had restorations with an emergence angle of >30°, while the remaining implants had restorative emergence angle of ≤30°. The follow-up time varied between 3.8 and 10.9 years. Implant restorations with an emergence angle of ≤30° were associated with less changes in peri-implant marginal bone level compared to those with emergence angle of >30°. The difference, however, was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.72; p = 0.09). In platform-matched implants, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant in favor of implant restorations with emergence angle of ≤30°. In terms of emergence profile, implant restorations with convex profile had significantly higher rate of peri-implantitis (57.8%) compared to implant restorations with concave or straight profile (21.3%) (risk ratio 2.32; 95% CI 1.12-4.82; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, implant restorations with an emergence angles of >30° or ≤30° seem to have no significant influence on peri-implant marginal bone level. Platform-matched implants with an emergence angle of ≤30° may have positive effects on the peri-implant marginal bone level changes, but the evidence support is of low to moderate certainty.

Anterior Maxillary Labial Bone Thickness on Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

AIM: The objective of this research was to measure the labial bone thickness (LBT) in relation to the 6 anterior maxillary teeth at different levels along the long axis and the distance between cementoenamel junction and bone crest (CEJ-BC) based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans retrieved from patients of Arab ethnicity and identify any association with patients' characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 CBCT scans were evaluated by one calibrated examiner. The thickness of the labial bone was measured perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth at 1, 3, and 5 mm from the alveolar crest (LBT-1, LBT-3, and LBT-5, respectively) and CEJ-BC using a medical imaging viewer. RESULTS: CBCT scans of 58 female patients and 42 male patients with a mean age of 39.7 ± 9.5 years were included. A high variation of CEJ-BC was observed (range, 0.55-3.90 mm). Statistically significant higher CEJ-BC values were associated with men and increased age (>50 years). The overall means of LBT-1 were 0.76 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.26, and 0.83 ± 0.37 mm; LBT-3: 0.92 ± 0.36, 1.05 ± 0.46, and 1.03 ± 0.48 mm; LBT-5: 1.17 ± 0.52, 0.80 ± 0.45, and 0.81 ± 0.40 mm for central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively. The LBT was <1 mm in 74.2% of all maxillary anterior teeth, with central incisors showing the highest predilection (85% with LBT <1 mm). No significant association between LBT and patient characteristics was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The CEJ-BC distance is greater in men and increases with age, particularly in those aged 50 years and older. The LBT in the 6 maxillary anterior teeth is predominantly thin (<1 mm) and has no correlation to age or sex. An increased LBT was observed at a 3-mm level when compared with LBT-1 and LBT-5. Such variability should be taken into consideration when planning for implant placement.

Older Adults' Satisfaction with Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

Aims: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the satisfaction of older adults with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, assess preferences to telemedicine or in-person visits, and identify factors of influence on the satisfaction with telemedicine. Methods: The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement. A search through key electronic databases identified 228 citations. After duplicate record removal, and title and abstract screening, 43 articles were eligible for full-text review. Of these, 10 studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review were finally included. Results: Older adults were satisfied with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were in favor of telemedicine compared to in-person visits, but the evidence support for this preference was limited. Factors influencing satisfaction were identified and categorized under four main categories: system-related factors, patient-related factors, socioeconomic factors, and factors related to the nature of the medical intervention. Conclusions: Older adults were satisfied with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. A positive trend of preference toward telemedicine was observed, but not well established due to the lack of an objective measure of assessment. Technical issues related to the telemedicine delivery system were the main challenges. The socioeconomic status and level of education of older adults can relatively influence the level of satisfaction with telemedicine. The experience of older adults with telemedicine is still evolving and advanced technologies specifically designed to address their needs must be explored to increase the telemedicine uptake among the older adult population during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mandibular 3-implant overdenture: A clinical report of a novel design.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the use of a mandibular 3-implant overdenture with a novel implant distribution opposing a maxillary complete denture for the rehabilitation of an older edentulous patient. BACKGROUND: The use of oral implants with attachment systems of various numbers and designs to support removable partial and complete dentures is well documented with success and predictability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An older edentulous patient with a mandibular implant-assisted removable partial denture was presented with failing remaining dentition. Teeth were extracted and a single midsymphyseal implant was placed. A mandibular overdenture on three implants with ball attachments in a tripod distribution was constructed to oppose a new maxillary complete denture made using a modified impression technique. RESULTS: Over 2 years of follow-up, no significant biological or mechanical complications were reported, and denture retention and stability remained optimum. CONCLUSION: Mandibular overdentures on three implants with ball attachments in a tripod distribution, opposing a maxillary complete denture, could be an alternative treatment option for the older edentulous patients.

A Retrospective Analysis of Biological Complications of Dental Implants.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients aged ≥18 years and having dental implants placed at Dubai Health Authority in 2010. Relevant information related to systemic-, patient-, implant-, site-, surgical- and prosthesis-related factors were collected. The strength of association between the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and each variable was measured by chi-square analysis. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify possible risk factors. Results: A total of 162 patients with 301 implant-supported restorations were included in the study. The age of the patients ranged between 19 and 72 with a mean age of 46.4 ± 11.7 years. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis at the patient and implant levels were 44.4% and 38.2%, respectively. For peri-implantitis, the prevalence at the patient level was 5.6%, while the prevalence at the implant level was 4.0%. The binary logistic regression identified three risk factors (smoking habits, histories of treated periodontitis and lack of peri-implant maintenance) for peri-implantitis. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, smoking habits, history of treated periodontitis and lack of peri-implant maintenance were significant risk factors for peri-implantitis. Early detection of these factors would ensure appropriate planning and care of patients at high risk of developing peri-implant diseases.

Diode Laser as an Adjunctive Treatment for Peri-implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The early detection and management of peri-implant mucositis may help in reducing inflammatory parameters and arrest disease progression to peri-implantitis. The potential therapeutic benefits of different adjunctive therapies, such as the diode laser, are still not completely understood. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to assess the outcomes of using diode laser on the management of peri-implant mucositis in terms of changes in periodontal parameters. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the combined use of mechanical debridement and diode laser with mechanical debridement alone. A specific risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analysed using a statistical software programme. In total, 149 studies were found. A meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed no statistically significant differences in probing pocket depths (mean difference [MD], -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.88 to 0.16; P = .18) or bleeding on probing (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, 1.58-0.16; P = .11) between the 2 groups at 3 months. In the management of peri-implant mucositis, the combined use of diode laser and mechanical debridement did not provide any additional clinical advantage over mechanical debridement alone. Long-term, well-designed RCTs are still needed.

Alveolar ridge preservation in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures can limit bone changes following tooth extraction. However, the role of ARP in periodontally compromised socket lacks strong scientific evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised teeth in comparison with extraction alone in terms of hard tissue changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ARP in periodontally compromised sockets with spontaneous socket healing. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Five studies with 134 extraction sockets in 126 participants were included. Of these, ARP was performed in 77 sites, while the remaining sites were intentionally left to heal without any ARP treatment. The follow-up time varied between 6 and 12 months. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in ridge height (mean difference (MD) -0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to -0.47; p = .0001) and bone volume (MD -38.70; 95% CI -52.17 to -25.24; p < .0001) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised tooth was also associated with significantly less need for additional bone grafting at the time of implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of periodontally compromised teeth may have short-term positive effects on alveolar ridge height and bone volume and minimize the need for additional augmentation procedures. However, the evidence is of very low to low certainty.

Airflow for initial nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis may help in reducing microbial load and inflammatory parameters. The potential clinical benefits of using different treatment approaches, in the initial nonsurgical treatment phase, particularly the airflow, are still not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow method in terms of changes in periodontal parameters, peri-implant marginal bone level, postoperative pain/discomfort, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared airflow with mechanical debridement using ultrasonic/curettes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: A total of 316 studies were identified, of which, five RCTs with 288 dental implants in 174 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed more reduction in probing pocket depths at 1-3 months (mean difference [MD] -0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50-0.05; p = 0.10) and 6 months (MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; p = 0.80) in favor of airflow, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of airflow was associated with significant reduction in bleeding on probing and increase in peri-implant mucosal recession. The differences in plaque score, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient reported outcomes between airflow and mechanical debridement were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow or mechanical debridement were comparable. The airflow has short-term positive effects on reducing bleeding on probing. Further evidence from RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.

The diagnostic accuracy of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Early detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is paramount for controlling the progression and spread of the disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swabbing (NPS) is the standard method for collecting specimens. Saliva was recently proposed as an easy and safe option with many authorities adopting the methodology despite the limited evidence of efficacy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the current literature on the use of saliva test for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and carry out a meta-analysis to determine its diagnostic accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective studies were searched for in electronic databases, complemented by hand-searching relevant journals. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the revised Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed to calculate the diagnostic accuracy and examine sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included with 2928 paired samples. The overall meta-analysis showed a high sensitivity and specificity for saliva test at 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.75-0.98), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was calculated at 87 (95% CI 19-395) and area under the curve was calculated as 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94) suggesting very good performance of the saliva tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Saliva testing has a very good discriminative and diagnostic ability to detect of SARS-CoV-2. Additional large and well-designed prospective studies are needed to further validate the diagnostic accuracy and determine a safe sample collection method prior to its recommendation for mass application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Saliva demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. The use of saliva will allow for self-collection of specimens and specimen collection in outpatient and community clinics.

The socket shield technique for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique (SST) may maintain the buccal bone plate and soft tissue levels, however, the potential clinical benefits of SST lack strong scientific evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of SST on dimensional changes of hard tissues, esthetic outcomes, implant stability, complication, and implant failure rates. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate implant placement with and without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: A total of 982 studies were identified, of which, seven RCTs with 206 immediately placed dental implants in 191 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in the changes in buccal bone plate width (mean difference (MD) -0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.15; p < 0.0001) and height (MD -0.52; 95% CI -0.85 to -0.18; p = 0.002) in favor of SST. The use of SST was also associated with significantly less changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels and better pink esthetic score than immediately placing implants without SST. The differences in implant stability, complication and implant failure rates were not statistically significant between immediate implant placement with or without SST. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term complication and implant failure rates following immediate implant placement with or without SST were comparable. The SST has short-term positive effects on the changes in width and height of buccal bone plate, peri-implant marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes. Further evidence from long-term RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: SST can reduce changes in buccal plate width and height and improve the soft tissue profile following immediate implant placement in esthetic zone.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.