Individual "alveolar phenotype" limits dimensions of lateral bone augmentation.

AIM: Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction often renders a lateral bone augmentation inevitable. Some patients, however, suffer from severe early (during graft healing, Eres ) and/or late (during follow-up, Lres ) graft resorption. We explored the hypothesis that the "individual phenotypic dimensions" may partially explain the degree of such resorptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure were screened for inclusion according to the following criteria: (1) a relatively symmetrical maxillary arch; (2) an intact contra-lateral alveolar bone dimension; (3) the availability of a pre-operative cone-beam CT (CBCT); (4) a CBCT taken immediately after GBR, and (5) at least one CBCT scan ≥6 months after surgery. CBCT scans from different timepoints were registered and imported into the Mimics software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Bone dimensions of the contra-lateral site of the augmentation, representing the "individual phenotypical dimension (IPD) of the alveolar crest", were superimposed on the augmented site and registered accordingly. As such, Eres and Lres could be measured over time, in relation to the IPD (in two dimensions; per millimetre apically from the alveolar crest, in the centre of the GBR), as well as in three dimensions (the entire GBR, 2 mm away from the mesial, distal, and apical border for standardization). RESULTS: A total of 17 patients (23 augmented sites) were included. After Eres , the outline of the augmentation was in general located ±1 mm outside the IPD, but ≥1.5 years after GBR, it further moved towards the IPD (85% within 0.5 mm distance). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that the dimensions of a lateral bone augmentation are defined by the "individual phenotypic bone boundaries" of the patient.

Bovine-derived xenograft in combination with autogenous bone chips versus xenograft alone for the augmentation of bony dehiscences around oral implants: A randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. RESULTS: In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. CONCLUSION: Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).

Treatment of aggressive periodontitis.

Despite etiological differences between aggressive and chronic periodontitis, the treatment concept for aggressive periodontitis is largely similar to that for chronic periodontitis. The goal of treatment is to create a clinical condition that is conducive to retaining as many teeth as possible for as long as possible. When a diagnosis has been made and risk factors have been identified, active treatment is commenced. The initial phase of active treatment consists of mechanical debridement, either alone or supplemented with antimicrobial drugs. Scaling and root planing has been shown to be effective in improving clinical indices, but does not always guarantee long-term stability. Antimicrobials can play a significant role in controlling aggressive periodontitis. Few studies have been published on this subject for localized aggressive periodontitis, but generalized aggressive periodontitis has been subject to more scrutiny. Studies have demonstrated that systemic antibiotics as an adjuvant to scaling and root planing are more effective in controlling disease compared with scaling and root planing alone or with supplemental application of local antibiotics or antiseptics. It has also become apparent that antibiotics ought to be administered with, or just after, mechanical debridement. Several studies have shown that regimens of amoxicillin combined with metronidazole or regimens of clindamycin are the most effective and are preferable to regimens containing doxycycline. Azithromycin has been shown to be a valid alternative to the regimen of amoxicillin plus metronidazole. A limited number of studies have been published on surgical treatment in patients with aggressive periodontitis, but the studies available show that the effect can be comparable with the effect on patients with chronic periodontitis, provided that proper oral hygiene is maintained, a strict maintenance program is followed and modifiable risk factors are controlled. Both access surgery and regenerative techniques have shown good results in patients with aggressive periodontitis. Once good periodontal health has been obtained, patients must be enrolled in a strict maintenance program that is directed toward controlling risk factors for disease recurrence and tooth loss. The most significant risk factors are noncompliance with regular maintenance care, smoking, high gingival bleeding index and poor plaque control. There is no evidence to suggest that daily use of antiseptic agents should be part of the supportive periodontal therapy for aggressive periodontitis.