Clinical and histological wound healing patterns of collagen-based substitutes: An experimental randomized controlled trial in standardized palatal defects in humans.

AIM: To evaluate the progression of wound healing of standardized palatal defects in groups using three different collagen-based wound dressings and a control group, in terms of wound closure, pain perception and descriptive histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were enrolled in this experimental study, in whom four palatal defects were created. The defects (6 mm diameter, 3 mm depth) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment modalities: C (control), MG (Mucograft®), MD (mucoderm®) and FG (Fibro-Gide®). Photographs were taken, and pain assessment was performed before and after treatment and at 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 16 days after surgery. All participants wore a palatal splint for a duration of 16 days. RESULTS: All groups achieved complete wound closure at 14 days. The percentage of the remaining open wound on day 7 amounted to 49.3% (C; interquartile range [IQR]: 22.6), 70.1% (FG; IQR: 20.7), 56.8% (MD; IQR: 26.3) and 62.2% (MG; IQR: 34.4). Statistically significant differences were found between FG and C (p =.01) and between MD and FG (p =.04). None of the participants rated pain higher than 4 out of 10 during the entire study period. CONCLUSIONS: Collagen-based wound dressings provide coverage of open defects, albeit without acceleration of wound closure or reduction of pain. FG (which is not intended for open oral wounds) showed slower wound closure compared to C and MD.

Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading-A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of posterior zirconia and titanium implants at 1 year of implant loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial with a within-subject controlled design. Each patient received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal positions randomized. The implant restoration consisted of multiple layered zirconia, with the buccal aspect veneered. In group Zr, the restoration was intraorally cemented onto the one-piece Zr implant, whereas in group Ti, the restoration was extraorally cemented onto the titanium base abutment and intraorally screw-retained onto the Ti implant. Examinations were performed following restoration delivery at baseline (BL) and at 1 year. Measurements included clinical parameters, radiographic outcomes (MBL) and PROMs. RESULTS: Bleeding on probing showed an increase from BL to 1 year (34 ± 30% for Zr; 25 ± 21% for Ti). MBL remained stable with minimal changes from BL to 1 year, measuring 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (mean ± SD) for Zr and -0.1 ± 0.7 mm for Ti. Veneering fractures were the most frequent technical complication and amounted to 17.5% in group Zr and 5% in group Ti (p = .100). Patients preferred Zr implants for their soft tissue color, with a significant difference in perception between patients and clinicians (p < .017). CONCLUSION: The study showed that both Zr and Ti implants had similar clinical outcomes, despite a high prevalence of mucositis and a few technical complications. Both implant types demonstrated stable marginal bone levels and similar patient-reported outcome measures.

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS: The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Zirconia bars for mandibular implant overdentures: A 1-year clinical and radiographic pilot study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of zirconia bars with distal extensions supporting mandibular implant overdentures based on biological and prosthodontic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen edentulous patients (seven women and eight men) were included in a pilot study. Each patient received two interforaminal implants and a mandibular implant overdenture supported by a CAD/CAM zirconia bar with distal extensions, giving a total of 30 implants. The bar design, biological outcomes (implant survival and peri-implant conditions), peri-implant bone level changes recorded on a panoramic radiograph and prosthodontic maintenance (bar fracture and maintenance of the attachment system) were assessed at a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After 1 year, all 15 zirconia bars with their corresponding prostheses and implants were successfully in situ with no prosthodontic maintenance required and no biological complications. One patient showed moderate mucosal hyperplasia around the bar. The peri-implant radiographic measurements revealed a stable marginal bone level, with a mean of 0.20 ± 0.67 mm. The mean total length of the bar segments was 41.9 mm (range 35.0 to 51.0 mm), 8.6 mm (range 7.2 to 10.6 mm) of which came from the length of the distal extension, resulting in a mean increase in rigid support of 71% (range 60% to 99%). The mean distal bar connector area was 9.7 mm2 (range 6.8 to 18.7 mm2). CONCLUSION: Zirconia bars with distal extensions for implant overdentures appear to be a reliable option for the prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles. A survival rate of 100% was observed for implants, bars and prostheses, with stable peri-implant bone levels, no biological complications and a low risk of prosthodontic maintenance being required.

Salivary biomarkers as key to monitor personalized oral healthcare and precision dentistry: A scoping review.

Personalized Oral Healthcare has recently become the new trend word in medicine and dentistry. In this context, saliva diagnostics using various biomarkers seem to be the gateway to personalized dental diagnostics and therapy. But the terminology is not (yet) uniformly defined, furthermore it is unclear to what extent which salivary markers play a relevant role in the therapeutic decision making. In this Scoping Review, an electronic search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases using medical subject headings (MESH terms) "saliva", "biomarker", "personality/persons", and "dentistry". Only human studies were included, in which repeated salivary measurements were performed to analyze monitoring effects with at least ten patients per group. PRISMA-ScR and Tricco guidelines were followed: (i) to examine what salivary biomarkers have been explored in terms of personalized oral healthcare and precision dentistry, (ii) to investigate the clinical relevance for oral health and its correlation to systemic health, and (iii) to summarize an outlook for future developments based on these results. Out of 899 studies, a total of 57 were included for data extraction in this Scoping Review, mainly focusing on periodontal therapy and patient monitoring. Salivary biomarkers have shown the potential to change the field of dentistry in all dental disciplines as a key for personalized workflows. The increasing interest in dental research is obvious, demonstrated by the growing number of publications in recent years. At this time, however, the predominant discipline is periodontology, which allows biomarker-based monitoring of the disease prevention and progression. The studies included showed heterogeneous methods using manifolds biomarkers. Therefore, no uniformly accepted concept can be presented today. Further clinical research with well-defined outcomes including standardized procedures is necessary.