Histological assessment and gene expression analysis of intra-oral soft tissue graft donor sites.

AIM: To determine the structural and gene expression features of different intra-oral soft tissue donor sites (i.e., anterior palate, posterior palate, maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized mucosal tissue punch biopsies were collected from at least one donor site per subject. Histological processing was performed to determine tissue morphometry and quantify collagen composition. Site-specific gene distribution was mapped using targeted gene expression analysis and validated using real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). RESULTS: A total of 50 samples from 37 subjects were harvested. Epithelial thickness did not differ between sites. However, lamina propria was thicker in the maxillary tuberosity (2.55 ± 0.92 mm) and retromolar pad (1.98 ± 0.71 mm) than in the lateral palate. Type I collagen was the predominant structural protein in the lamina propria (75.06%-80.21%). Genes involving collagen maturation and extracellular matrix regulation were highly expressed in the maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad, while lipogenesis-associated genes were markedly expressed in the lateral palate. The retromolar pad showed the most distinct gene expression profile, and the anterior and posterior palate displayed similar transcription profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue samples harvested from the anterior and posterior palate differed morphologically from those from the maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad. Each intra-oral site showed a unique gene expression profile, which might impact their biological behaviour and outcomes of soft tissue augmentation procedures.

Non-invasive assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of different non-invasive methods for the assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness. METHODS: Subjects with two adjacent dental implants in the central maxillary region were included in this study. Three different methods to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) were compared: digital file superimposition using Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) and stereolithography (STL) files of the arch of interest (DICOM-STL), DICOM files alone, and non-ionizing ultrasound (US). Inter-rater reliability agreements between different assessment methods were analyzed using inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects with 100 bone-level implants constituted the study population. Assessment of FMT using STL and DICOM files demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability agreement. Mean ICC values of 0.97 and 0.95 were observed in the DICOM-STL and DICOM groups, respectively. Comparison between the DICOM-STL and US revealed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.88) and a mean difference of -0.13 ± 0.50 mm (-1.13 to 0.86). Comparison between DICOM files alone versus US showed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89) and a mean difference of -0.23 ± 0.46 mm (-1.12 to 0.67). Comparison between DICOM-STL and DICOM files revealed excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.96) and a mean difference of 0.1 ± 0.29 mm (LOA -0.47 to 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of peri-implant mucosal thickness via analysis of DICOM-STL files, DICOM files, or US assessment are comparably reliable and reproducible methods.

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: To identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol of this Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified, and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk-of-bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 non-RCTs, and 33 case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, aesthetic, histological, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research on peri-implant soft tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally under-reported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Alveolar ridge preservation: Complications and cost-effectiveness.

Alveolar ridge preservation is routinely indicated in clinical practice with the purpose of attenuating postextraction ridge atrophy. Over the past two decades numerous clinical studies and reviews on this topic have populated the literature. In recent years the focus has primarily been on analyzing efficacy outcomes pertaining to postextraction dimensional changes, whereas other relevant facets of alveolar ridge preservation therapy have remained unexplored. With this premise, we carried out a comprehensive evidence-based assessment of the complications associated with different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation and modeled the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities as a function of changes in ridge width and height. We conclude that, among allogeneic and xenogeneic bone graft materials, increased expenditure does not translate into increased effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapy. On the other hand, a significant association between expenditure on a barrier membrane and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge resorption was observed, though only to a certain degree, beyond which the return on investment was significantly diminished.

Assessment of gingival thickness using digital file superimposition versus direct clinical measurements.

OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at evaluating the correlation and reproducibility of gingival thickness quantification using digital and direct clinical assessment methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in need of tooth extraction were allocated into two groups according to the gingival thickness measurement method, either using an endodontic spreader (pre-extraction) or a spring caliper (post-extraction), both on the mid-facial (FGT) and mid-lingual (LGT). Pre-extraction Digital Imaging and COmmunications in Medicine (DICOM) and STereoLithography (STL) files of the arch of interest were obtained and merged for corresponding digital measurements. Inter-rater reliability between digital and direct assessment methods was analyzed using inter-class correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Excellent inter-rater reliability agreement was demonstrated for all parameters. Comparison between the endodontic spreader and the digital method revealed excellent agreement, with ICC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.55, 0.91) for FGT and 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 0.94) for LGT, and mean differences of 0.08 (- 0.04 to 0.55) and 0.25 (- 0.30 to 0.81) mm for FGT and LGT, respectively. Meanwhile, the comparison between the caliper and the digital method demonstrated poor agreement, with ICC of 0.38 (95% CI - 0.06, 0.70) for FGT and 0.45 (95% CI - 0.02, 0.74) for LGT, and mean differences of 0.65 (0.14 to 1.16) and 0.64 (0.12 to 1.17) mm for FGT and LGT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Digital measurement of gingival thickness is comparable with direct clinical assessments performed with transgingival horizontal probing using an endodontic spreader. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Digital assessment of gingival thickness is a non-tissue invasive, reliable, and reproducible method that could be utilized as an alternative to horizontal transgingival probing.

Periodontal treatment needs in the Medicaid patient population: a retrospective study in a US dental school.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to use electronic health records (EHRs) from a US dental school clinic to retrospectively investigate associations between periodontal treatment needs and insurance type in a newly insured adult Medicaid population. We hypothesized that newly insured Medicaid patients, covered by the Iowa Dental Wellness Plan (DWP), would display greater need for treatment than patients with other sources of financing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of EHRs of patients at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics (UI COD) from 2014 to 2016 was completed. The outcome of interest whether or not a new patient was indicated for scaling and root planing (SRP) based on clinical examination. Logistic regression models analyzed associations between treatment need and source of financing, adjusting for known periodontal disease risk indicators. RESULTS: A total of 1,259 patient charts were evaluated. SRP was indicated for 56 percent of all patients. Patients with DWP coverage had significantly greater unadjusted odds of being indicated for SRP than privately insured individuals (OR = 1.47, P = 0.009). However, this association did not remain significant after adjusting for known risk indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Although individuals enrolled in DWP were not significantly more likely to need treatment than individuals with other sources of financing when adjusting for risk indicators, their demonstrated clinical need was higher than privately insured adults. Public benefit programs could anticipate greater burden of periodontal need in low-income populations due to increased prevalence of risk factors in this population.

A cross-sectional assessment of biomarker levels around implants versus natural teeth in periodontal maintenance patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies point to the clinical utility of using peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) as a valuable diagnostic aid for monitoring peri-implant tissue health. The objectives of this study are to determine the levels of key biomarkers in PISF in periodontal maintenance participants and compare them with their corresponding levels in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) obtained from the same participants. METHODS: PISF and GCF were collected from an implant and a contralateral natural tooth after the clinical examination of 73 participants. The levels of interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-17A, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, C-reactive protein, osteoprotegerin, leptin, and adiponectin were determined using multiplex proteomic immunoassays. The correlation of biomarker concentrations between GCF versus PISF, within GCF or PISF, and with several covariates (age, brushing frequency, days since professional cleaning, probing depth [PD], and plaque index) were also determined. RESULTS: Significantly higher levels of IL-17A (P = 0.02) and TNF-α (P = 0.03) were noted in PISF when compared with their levels in GCF. Significant positive correlations were noted between the concentrations of cytokines in PISF versus their levels in GCF. Among the covariates, a significant positive correlation was noted between mean PDs around implants and levels of IL-1ß (P <0.05) and IL-8 (P <0.05) in PISF. CONCLUSION: The results of this study point to the differential expression of specific biomarkers in GCF versus their levels in PISF in periodontal maintenance patients, which is critical information before establishing PISF as a diagnostic fluid to monitor peri-implant health.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar ridge preservation.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published on the topic of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search for SRs on ARP on the basis of a set of eligibility criteria (only SRs involving ARP, with or without meta-analyses, written in English). The authors assessed the quality of the SRs independently of one another by using two established checklists. RESULTS: The authors selected eight SRs. The results of all of the SRs indicated that ARP was effective in preserving the ridge volume as compared with extraction alone, but it did not fully prevent bone-resorptive events. None of the SRs, however, received the highest possible score in either of the checklists. One SR that had a score of 5 (of a possible 11) using one checklist and 5 (of a possible 14) using the other checklist had the lowest overall score. The results of this assessment revealed that a significant proportion of the investigators in the SRs did not include non-English language articles, perform hand searching of published literature or evaluate the gray literature. Assessment of publication bias and reporting of conflicts of interest also was lacking in some studies. Practical Implications. Although ARP appears to be an effective approach to preventing resorption after tooth extraction, significant structural and methodological variability exists among SRs on this topic. Future SRs on ARP should consider the use of quality assessment checklists to minimize methodological shortcomings for better dissemination of scientific evidence.

The association between periodontitis and coronary heart disease: a quality assessment of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The existence of an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease has been proposed by investigators in several clinical studies and further confirmed by the results of several systematic reviews. The aim of the authors' study was to assess the quality of published systematic reviews focused on the association between periodontitis and coronary heart disease (CHD) by using established systematic review assessment checklists. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted a search for systematic reviews focusing on the association between periodontitis and CHD. Three independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected 13 reviews by using an established and validated assessment tool for systematic reviews and another checklist. They gave each article a total score according to the number of criteria on each checklist that the article fulfilled. RESULTS: Nine reviews satisfied six or more items on the assessment tool, whereas two reviews each satisfied only one item. This assessment shows that published systematic reviews of the periodontitis-CHD association exhibit significant structural and methodological variation, which the authors further confirmed by using the second checklist. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of the association between periodontitis and CHD exhibited significant differences in their methodological quality. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware that not all systematic reviews of the periodontitis-CHD association are conducted in a rigorous manner and should be capable of differentiating well-conducted reviews from poorly conducted ones.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews represent the highest form of evidence in the current hierarchy of evidence-based dentistry. Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas that need future improvement. The aim of this overview is to determine and compare the quality of systematic reviews published in the field of periodontal regeneration using established checklists, such as the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans. A total of 14 systematic reviews were selected using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR guidelines. Each article was given an AMSTAR total score, based on the number of AMSTAR criteria that were fulfilled. The quality of included reviews was further assessed using a checklist proposed in 2003. RESULTS: Only one of the selected systematic reviews satisfied all the AMSTAR guidelines, whereas two reviews satisfied just two of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration exhibit significant structural and methodologic variability. Quality assessment using the additional checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported. CONCLUSION: Consideration of guidelines for quality assessment, such as AMSTAR, when designing and conducting systematic reviews may increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.