Influence of mobility on the long-term risk of tooth extraction/loss in periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether tooth mobility (TM) increases the risk of tooth extraction/loss. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023485425). The focused PECO questions were as follows: (1) "In patients with periodontitis, undergoing periodontal treatment, are teeth affected by mobility at higher risk of being extracted/lost compared to non-mobile teeth, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?" and (2) "In these patients, does varying degrees of tooth mobility increase the risk of tooth extraction/loss, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?". Results were reported according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify longitudinal studies. The different assessments of tooth mobility were pooled into three groups: TM0: Undetectable tooth mobility, TM1: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility ≤1 mm, TM2: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility >1 mm or vertical tooth mobility. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. Various meta-analyses were conducted, including subgroup analyses considering different follow-up lengths and the timing of TM assessment, along with sensitivity analyses. A trial sequential analysis was also performed. Eleven studies were included (1883 patients). The mean follow-up range was 10-25 years. The weighted total of included teeth, based on the sample size, was 18 918, with a total of 1604 (8.47%) extracted/lost teeth. The overall rate of tooth extraction/loss increased with increasing mobility: TM0 was associated with a 5.85% rate (866/14822), TM1 with the 11.8% (384/3255), TM2 with the 40.3% (339/841). Mobile teeth (TM1/TM2) were at an increased risk for tooth extraction/loss, compared to TM0 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 1.88-4.32]; p < .00001). TM1 had a higher risk than TM0 (HR: 1.96; [95% CI 1.09-3.53]; p < .00001). TM2 had a higher risk than TM1 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 2.19-3.70]; p < .00001) and TM0 (HR: 7.12; [95% CI 3.27-15.51]; p < .00001). The results of the tests for subgroup differences were not significant. Sensitivity meta-analyses yielded consistent results with other meta-analyses. Within the limits of the quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses, mobile teeth were at higher risk of being extracted/lost in the long-term and higher degrees of TM significantly influenced clinicians' decision to extract a tooth. However, most teeth can be retained in the long-term and thus TM should not be considered a reason for extraction or a risk factor for tooth loss, regardless of the degree of TM.

Non-surgical retreatment versus papillary preservation flap surgery for residual pockets: A randomized controlled trial with clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of non-surgical re-instrumentation (NSR) and papillary preservation flap (PPF) surgery at single-rooted teeth with residual pockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least a residual pocket depth (PD ≥ 5 mm) after Steps I and II were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive NSR or PPF surgery. The primary outcome was PD reduction, and secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL) change and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Outcome variables were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The examiner was blinded. Statistical analysis, one site for each patient, included descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Forty-six participants were enrolled, and one patient dropped out in the PPF group. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant PD reduction (1.3 ± 1.2 mm, p = .009 NSR; 2.0 ± 0.7 mm, p < .001 PPF) and CAL gain (1.0 ± 2.4 mm, p = .031 NSR; 1.4 ± 0.8 mm, p < .001 PPF). PD reduction between groups was not statistically significant (diff: 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.3 to 1.5]; p = .167). Pocket closure was 61% NSR versus 86% PPF (p = .091). Smoking was associated with less PD reduction of almost 1 mm in both treatments. Treatment time was longer for PPF surgery, but PROMs and post-operative pain were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both NSR and PPF reduced PD without significant difference between treatments at 6 months. PPF surgery may offer faster PD reduction, but smoking habits reduce treatment efficacy.

Polynucleotides and Hyaluronic Acid (PN-HA) Mixture With or Without Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral as a Novel Approach for the Treatment of Deep Infra-Bony Defects: A Retrospective Case-Series.

Polynucleotides and Hyaluronic Acid (PN-HA) mixture showed several effects in modulation of healing process. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and clinical performance of PN-HA alone or in association with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral (DBBM) with papillary preservation flaps (PPF) in the treatment of residual pockets. A total of 43 patients with 55 infra-bony defects were recruited; 30% were smokers. The mean baseline Probing Depth (PD) was 7.7 ±1.9 mm with a corresponding mean recession (Rec) of 1.9± 1.3 mm. The depth of infra-bony defect at the surgical measurement was 5.2±2.1 mm. DBBM was applied at 56% of the defects considered as not-containing based on clinical judgment. Healing was uneventful at all sites. After one year, PD reduction was 4.4±1.8 mm with a Rec increase of 1.0 ±0.8 mm. Detected bone fill at x-ray was 3.5 ± 1.9mm. The multilevel analysis showed that absence of smoking habits was associated with improved PD reduction (P =0.026) and bone gain (P= 0.039). PN-HA mixture is a safe product for periodontal surgery and seems to promote clinical benefit in the treatment of residual pockets associated to infra-bony defects.