Techniques on vertical ridge augmentation: Indications and effectiveness.

Vertical ridge augmentation techniques have been advocated to enable restoring function and esthetics by means of implant-supported rehabilitation. There are three major modalities. The first is guided bone regeneration, based on the principle of compartmentalization by means of using a barrier membrane, which has been demonstrated to be technically demanding with regard to soft tissue management. This requisite is also applicable in the case of the second modality of bone block grafts. Nonetheless, space creation and maintenance are provided by the solid nature of the graft. The third modality of distraction osteogenesis is also a valid and faster approach. Nonetheless, owing to this technique's inherent shortcomings, this method is currently deprecated. The purpose of this review is to shed light on the state-of-the-art of the different modalities described for vertical ridge augmentation, including the indications, the step-by-step approach, and the effectiveness.

Minimal invasiveness in vertical ridge augmentation.

Vertical ridge augmentation is one of the most challenging procedures in implant dentistry because of the advanced skills required by the operator and the fact that bone augmentation is aimed outside the bony contour, in an environment of reduced blood supply. What is more, the flap management required to ensure soft tissue closure frequently leads to associated comorbidities in terms of swelling and hematomas. For these reasons, and even if autologous onlay block grafts are still the gold standard, new techniques and biomaterials have favored the development of potentially less invasive approaches. The present work evaluates the most recent strategies in vertical ridge augmentation to reduce invasiveness and complications, including diagnostic/treatment planning considerations, surgical techniques, digital tools (eg, customized titanium meshes/membranes or bone blocks), and future trends in the field of tissue engineering and cell therapy.

Bone preservation or augmentation simultaneous with or prior to dental implant placement: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and eighty-three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). CONCLUSION: Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three-dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported.

Hard and soft tissue healing around teeth prepared with the biologically oriented preparation technique and restored with provisional crowns: An in vivo experimental investigation.

AIM: To evaluate the hard and soft tissues healing around teeth prepared with the biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) versus the chamfer technique versus non-prepared teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two teeth in eight beagle dogs were randomly prepared with the BOPT (test = 16) or chamfer (control = 16) techniques and covered with polymethylmethacrylate crowns as provisional restorations. Sixteen negative controls (non-prepared teeth) were also used for comparison. Histological description and histomorphometrical measurements of the periodontal tissues were collected at 4 and 12 weeks in 7 out of 8 dogs, including the soft tissue height and thickness, and the horizontal and vertical bone dimensions. RESULTS: When compared with negative controls, test and control preparation techniques exhibited a more apical location of the free gingival margin with respect to the cement-enamel junction (∆ = 1.1 mm for both groups at 4 weeks (p < .05), 0.99 mm for the test group (p = .043) and 0.20 mm for control group (p = 1.000) at 12 weeks). There were no significant differences between test and control groups with respect to vertical and horizontal histometric measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The BOPT and chamfer tooth preparation protocols induced similar qualitative and quantitative changes in the healing of the supra-crestal soft tissue complex, when compared with non-prepared teeth. Despite the limited amount of power, it appeared that differences between the tested preparation techniques were not statistically significant.

Bone preservation or augmentation simultaneous with or prior to dental implant placement: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures and methods of assessment in clinical studies on bone augmentation/preservation procedures for the placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on three databases from January 2011 to April 2021 to identify clinical studies reporting on any type of bone augmentation/preservation procedure. The outcomes that have been used to assess efficacy or performance in each study were registered and assigned to different domains (group of outcomes). The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and eighty-three publications were included. Only 81.8% of the papers had a clear definition of their primary outcome. The rate of complications (59.3%), implant survival (58.2%), 3D radiographic bone gain/change (30%), marginal bone level (MBL; 29%), and histological outcomes (25.5%) were the most frequently reported outcome domains. The most commonly used primary outcome was 3D radiographic bone gain/change (25.8%), followed by implant survival (13.0%). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported in 15.7% of studies. Differences in the reported outcomes were observed among different types of bone preservation/augmentation interventions (i.e., alveolar ridge preservation, immediate implants, horizontal and/or vertical ridge augmentation, and sinus floor augmentation). CONCLUSION: Within the past decade, great heterogeneity was observed among the outcomes considered in studies evaluating bone preservation/augmentation procedures. Three-dimensional radiographic bone gain/change was the most routinely reported main outcome variable, while PROMs were rarely reported.

Efficacy and risks of tooth-supported prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients with stage IV periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of tooth-supported fixed prostheses in partially edentulous patients with stage IV periodontitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies or case series were searched in three databases. Survival rate of abutment teeth was considered the primary outcome. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were included. No RCTs or CCTs compared the efficacy of tooth-supported fixed prostheses between patients with severe periodontitis or non-periodontitis patients. Most of the data retrieved were derived from case series. The incidence of abutment-tooth loss after a follow-up period from 2 to 35.4 years was low (n = 17 studies; weighted mean incidence (WMI) = 4.8%; confidence interval (CI) [3.2, 6.5]). The corresponding figure for prostheses failure was WMI = 6.9% (n = 18; 95% CI [4.1, 9.7]). Technical complications seemed to be more frequent than biological complications (caries, endodontic failure, root fracture, etc.). Periodontal outcomes tended to remain stable over time. CONCLUSION: Tooth-supported fixed prostheses seemed to be a valid treatment approach to restore masticatory function in patients with stage IV periodontitis once periodontal therapy has been accomplished. However, the comparative efficacy of this treatment among periodontitis and non-periodontitis patients is unclear due to the absence of clinical trials.

Hard and soft tissue healing around implants with a modified implant neck configuration: An experimental in vivo preclinical investigation.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the dimensions and morphology of peri-implant tissues around a modified dental implant designed with tissue level connection and a convergent transmucosal neck, when compared with a conventional bone level implant connected to a cylindrical machined titanium abutment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight experimental animals were used for this in vivo investigation, in whom 16 test and 16 control implants were placed following a random allocation sequence. The following histological outcomes at 4 and 12 weeks were evaluated: morphology of peri-implant tissues, the soft tissue height and thickness, the horizontal and vertical bone remodeling, and the bone to implant contact (BIC). RESULTS: In both early (4 weeks) and late (12 weeks) healing times, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control implants, with respect to the overall height and thickness of the peri-implant hard and soft tissues. There was a tendency toward a more coronal free gingival margin (I-FGM) at the buccal aspect of test when compared to control implants (at 4 weeks, difference of 0.97 mm (p = .572) and 0.30 mm (p = 1.000) at 12 weeks). Similarly, there was a tendency toward a more coronal position of the first bone to implant contact (I-B) at the buccal aspect of test as compared to control implants (1.08 mm (p = 0.174) at 4 weeks and 0.83 mm (p = 0.724) at 12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Hard and soft tissue healing occurred at both implant types with no statistically significant differences. Test implants tended to present a more coronal gingival margin (FGM) and first bone to implant contact (B).

A retrospective 10-year mean follow-up of implants placed in ridges grafted using autogenous mandibular blocks covered with bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane.

OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients presenting with edentulous and atrophic ridges and treated with autogenous mandibular bone blocks and rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 2015, 75 patients presenting with bone defects of the jaws were grafted with autogenous mandibular bone blocks. One-hundred eighty-two implants were placed 4 to 12 months later and loaded 3 to 10 months later: the mean follow-up was 10 years (range: 3-16 years). The following outcomes were recorded: (a) complication rate of the reconstructive procedure; (b) bone graft resorption before implant placement; (c) peri-implant bone resorption; (d) implant-related complications; and (e) implant survival and success rates. RESULTS: Postoperative recovery was uneventful in the majority of patients. An early dehiscence occurred in three patients, but with no significant bone loss, while 3 experienced temporary paraesthesia. The mean vertical and horizontal bone resorption before implant placement was 0.18 mm (standard deviation [SD] = 0.43) and 0.15 mm (SD = 0.42), respectively. The mean peri-implant bone loss ± standard deviation was 1.06 ± 1.19 (range: 0.00-5.05) at patient level and 1.11 ± 1.26 (range: 0.00-5.20) at implant level. Two implants in 2 patients lost integration and were removed; 10 implants in 7 patients developed peri-implantitis, but healed after surgical treatment. The cumulative implant survival and success rates were 98.11% and 85.16%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implants placed in areas reconstructed with mandibular bone blocks presented survival rates consistent with those obtained for implants placed in native bone.

Dental implants placed in severely atrophic jaws reconstructed with autogenous calvarium, bovine bone mineral, and collagen membranes: A 3- to 19-year retrospective follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: To present the clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of patients presenting with severely resorbed ridges reconstructed with autogenous calvarial bone blocks and rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2014, 72 patients presenting with severe bone defects were reconstructed with autogenous calvarial bone blocks covered with bovine bone mineral granules and collagen membranes. Four to 9 months later, 330 implants were placed and loaded 3-9 months later. The follow-up ranged from 3 to 19 years (mean: 8.1 years). The following parameters were recorded: (a) complication rate of the reconstructive procedure; (b) bone resorption before implant placement; (c) implant survival rate and implant-related complications; (d) peri-implant bone resorption; and (e) patient's satisfaction inquired with a dedicated questionnaire. RESULTS: No patients developed severe complications, such as complete loss or resorption of the grafts. A dehiscence occurred in six patients, which developed a mild graft resorption. The mean peri-implant bone resorption before implant placement was 0.13 mm (SD ± 0.71). All patients received the planned number of implants. Three patients were lost during the follow-up. The survival rate of implants at the end of the observation period was 98.5%. The mean peri-implant bone resorption ranged from 0.00 to 4.87 mm (mean: 1.11 mm). At last, 90% of the patients were very satisfied as regards the treatment received. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggested that: (a) bone volume in the areas reconstructed with calvarial grafts was stable over time; (b) survival rates of implants were consistent with those reported for implants placed in native bone; (c) patient's satisfaction was high.

Harvest of epithelialized gingival grafts without application of hemostatic sutures: A randomized clinical trial using laser speckle contrast imaging.

BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms and a 1:1 allocation ratio aimed to compare early microvascular healing (primary outcome), surgical times, and patient-reported outcomes (PROM) after harvesting palatal epithelialized gingival grafts (EGG), where hemostasis was achieved with sutures and hemostatic sponges (control) or with a sutureless approach (test). METHODS: From a total of 33 patients, 34 EGG were harvested. Thirty-two were randomized to the test/control group (n = 16) and two were excluded. Early palatal microvascular healing was assessed at 7, 14, and 30 days with laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI). Postoperative bleeding, pain, discomfort, and analgesic consumption were assessed over 2 weeks with a dedicated questionnaire. RESULTS: A faster onset and resolution of postharvest hyperemia was observed in the test group where peak blood flow was reached at 7 days. No significant blood flow differences were observed between the groups at any of the evaluated timepoints. The mean surgical time was 13 min shorter in the test (p = 0.00). No significant differences were observed for postoperative bleeding and analgesic consumption at any timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: The tested approach represents a viable alternative to the standard one, providing no relevant differences in microvascular, clinical, and patient-related results, but with significantly shorter surgical times.

Wound Closure and Simultaneous Soft Tissue Augmentation at Fresh Extraction Sockets: A Simplified Technique Adopting a Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix.

A simplified surgical technique is presented for closure and soft tissue augmentation of fresh extraction sockets that utilizes a xenogeneic collagen matrix as a substitute for a combined onlay-interpositional connective tissue graft. Ten alveoli receiving a socket preservation procedure (n = 5) or an immediate submerged implant (n = 5) were sealed with a xenogeneic collagen matrix, stabilized under small palatal and buccal full-thickness envelope flaps. Eight weeks after surgery, full wound closure was achieved in 9 out of 10 sites with satisfactory esthetic integration (mean ΔE score: 3.76). Results from this descriptive observational study suggest that this technique may represent a valuable and minimally invasive solution to simplify closure and soft tissue augmentation of fresh extraction sockets.