Titanium vs ceramic single dental implants in the anterior maxilla: A 12-month randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare ceramic and titanium implants with respect to the esthetic and clinical parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients received thirty implants (8-12 mm in length, 3.3 mm diameter, and a tissue level design) to replace single teeth in the anterior maxilla. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a ceramic or a titanium implant. Esthetic, clinical parameters, and PROMs were evaluated 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 12 months post-final loading, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to esthetics. Mean Index Crown Aesthetic score was 6.31 (95% C.I. 4.59-8.04) and 6.07 (95% C.I. 4.21-7.93) for ceramic and titanium implants, respectively. The pink esthetic score (PES) was 7.81 (95% C.I. 6.90-8.73) for ceramic implants and 7.86 (95% C.I. 7.11-8.60) for titanium implants, with no significant differences between groups. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the other clinical parameters and PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Monotype ceramic implants have proven to be a good treatment option in the upper anterior sector, showing favorable esthetic results, being comparable to titanium implants. This clinical trial has been registered in clinical trials with the identifier CI_RCT_US16 and registration number NCT04707677. A retrospective registration of the clinical trial was carried out since registration was not mandatory on the date the study began.

Morbidity and economic complications following mucogingival surgery in a hemophiliac HIV-infected patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: This report describes the surgical treatment of a gingival recession in a hemophiliac HIV-infected patient. To our knowledge, mucogingival surgery has not been described previously in these patients. METHODS: Under the supervision of the patient's hematologist, a subepithelial connective tissue graft procedure was carried out to treat the recession. The treatment was performed after substitution therapy with factor VIII concentrate, supported by local antifibrinolytic treatment with epsilonaminocaproic acid. RESULTS: One week after surgery, the grafted zone showed a normal healing, but an area of necrosis appeared at the donor palatal site with spontaneous bleeding. The administration of factor VIII concentrate had to be prolonged to arrest the hemorrhage. In total, 44,500 units of factor VIII concentrate were used, the cost of which reached around $20,000. After 1 month the donor site had re-epithelialized by secondary intention. The root coverage was around 85% successful. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the surgical risk and the high economic cost in the use of the factor VIII concentrate, we do not recommend performing mucogingival surgery in HIV-infected hemophiliacs unless it is absolutely necessary. Prevention and early treatment must be the goal in the management of these patients.