Tunnel vs. coronally advanced flap in combination with a connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the partial-thickness non-advanced tunnel technique (TUN) versus the coronally advanced flap (CAF), both combined with a connective tissue graft, in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients (83 teeth) affected by multiple gingival recessions were treated in two clinical centers with either the test (TUN) or the control (CAF) intervention combined with a connective tissue graft. Outcomes at 3 and 6 months after surgery included complete root coverage (CRC-primary outcome), mean root coverage (mRC), changes in recession depth (RD), probing pocket depth (PPD), and keratinized tissue height (KT). Root sensitivity and root coverage esthetic score (RES) were also evaluated at 6-month examination. Surgery duration, wound healing index (WHI), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were additionally considered. RESULTS: At 6 months, CRC was observed in 80.9% and 79.5% of the teeth treated with TUN and CAF, respectively (odds ratio = 1.2; p = 0.802). No differences between groups were also observed in terms of mRC (TUN = 94.0%; CAF = 91.1%), RD and PPD reductions, root sensitivity, RES, and WHI. KT increase was significantly higher in teeth treated with TUN (Difference in Means - MD = - 1.0 mm; p = 0.001). Surgery duration was shorter (MD = - 19.3 min; p = 0.001), and patients reported less intra-surgical pain (MD = - 16.4; p = 0.028) as well as postoperative morbidity in TUN compared with CAF. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical interventions showed a similar efficacy in terms of root coverage, albeit TUN was associated with a higher increase in KT and with a milder patient's surgical experience. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both techniques have shown similar efficacy for the coverage of exposed root surfaces, although clinicians may consider TUN as less invasive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05122468).

In vitro effect of different implant decontamination methods in three intraosseous defect configurations.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro investigation was aimed to evaluate the cleaning ability of four mechanical devices designed for decontaminating implant surfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six implants were coated with permanent ink and inserted into 3D-printed resin blocks simulating three different intraosseous defect configurations (types Ib, Ic, and Ie). The four tested mechanical decontamination devices (air-polishing with glycine powder, rotating titanium brush, polyetheretherketone [PEEK]-coated ultrasonic tip, and stainless steel ultrasonic tip) were randomly applied onto the 5 mm exposed implant surface. Standardized photographs were taken from a frontal perspective and with a 30° angle coronally and apically to the implant axis. The area with remnant ink on the implant surface was calculated. RESULTS: Although none of the groups achieved complete ink removal, air-polishing with glycine and titanium brushes demonstrated a higher cleaning ability when compared with ultrasonic devices either with standard or PEEK tips for all three defect configurations. For the three tested models, the best cleaning ability in all groups was shown on implant surfaces without facing an intraosseous wall. Titanium brush was the most effective when the intraosseous walls existed. Cleaning effectiveness diminished in the threads located in the apical third, especially when using air-polishing and ultrasonic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Titanium brushes and air-polishing devices were more effective in removing artificial biofilm using this in vitro model, although their effectiveness was influenced by the presence of the intrabony component.

Introduction of a prediction model to assigning periodontal prognosis based on survival time.

AIMS: To develop a prediction model for tooth loss due to periodontal disease (TLPD) in patients following periodontal maintenance (PM), and assess its performance using a multicentre approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multilevel analysis of eleven predictors of TLPD in 500 patients following PM was carried out to calculate the probability of TLPD. This algorithm was applied to three different TLPD samples (369 teeth) gathered retrospectively by nine periodontist, associating several intervals of probability with the corresponding survival time, based on significant differences in the mean survival time. The reproducibility of these associations was assessed in each sample (One-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison with Bonferroni corrections). RESULTS: The model presented high specificity and moderate sensitivity, with optimal calibration and discrimination measurements. Seven intervals of probability were associated with seven survival time and these associations contained close to 80% of the cases: the probability predicted the survival time at this percentage. The model performed well in the three samples, as the mean survival time of each association were significantly different within each sample, while no significant differences between the samples were found in pairwise comparisons of means. CONCLUSIONS: This model might be useful for predicting survival time in different TLPD samples.

The apically incised coronally advanced surgical technique (AICAST) for periodontal regeneration in isolated defects: a case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the performance up to 5 years of an innovative surgical design (the apically incised coronally advanced surgical technique [AICAST]) for the regenerative treatment of one- or two-walled intrabony periodontal lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: After completion of standard step I to II periodontal therapy, nine isolated periodontal defects were treated through AICAST. The following clinical outcome measurements were collected before the surgical intervention and at the last available follow-up: probing pocket depth (PPD), recession depth (REC), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Periapical radiographs of the treated teeth were also taken at baseline and at the last available follow-up (18 months or 5 years postoperatively). RESULTS: A mean (± standard deviation) PPD reduction of 6.05 ± 1.76 mm (P < .01), REC reduction of 1.15 ± 1.97 mm (P = .119), and CAL gain of 7.20 ± 2.13 mm (P < .01) were attained when comparing preoperative results with the last follow-up visit. CAL gain of 6 mm or more was reached in eight out of nine treated cases (88.9%), with a residual PPD of 2 to 3 mm in all the cases. Complete radiographic fill of the intrabony component was present in all the defects, while detectable suprabony radiographic filling was identified in two cases. CONCLUSION: AICAST represents an innovative surgical design for the treatment of deep intrabony defects and the eventual reduction of the associated gingival recessions. Preliminary results show good performance in terms of clinical attachment gains and maintenance of the marginal tissues.

Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two dental implants with different neck configurations.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implant bone levels can vary according to the implant neck macro-design and the implant-abutment interface. PURPOSE: To compare the changes in soft and hard tissues when using a one-piece implant with a machined collar (TG) versus a two-piece implant with a progressive platform widening and a platform switching connection (SP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Partially edentulous patients willing to receive one or two implants in the posterior maxilla or mandible were randomized to the control (TG) or to the test group (SP). Final prostheses were delivered after 12 months. Radiographic measurements of interproximal bone levels (primary outcome) were assessed at implant loading and 1-year postloading. Clinical, patient related outcomes and adverse events were assessed at loading and after 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Sixty-one implants were placed in 47 patients, 37 patients (18 in the TG group and 19 in the SP group), and 47 implants (23 TG and 24 SP) completed the 24-months follow up. At the patient level, a significantly greater bone resorption from baseline to implant loading was observed in the SP group (-0.42 ± 0.45 vs -0.07 ± 0.45; P = .001*), while from loading to the final visit, the TG group had significantly greater bone loss than the SP group (-0.26 ± 0.22 vs -0.11 ± 0.2; P = .020*). At 24 months after surgery, there were no significant differences between both groups (control: 0.33 ± 0.49 vs test: 0.53 ± 0.53; P = .230). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of implant reported high survival rates and similar bone level changes, clinical parameters, and patient related outcomes after 12 months of loading.