The effectiveness of different mandibular advancement amounts in OSA patients: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

PURPOSE: The therapy with mandibular advancement devices (MADs) represents a treatment option for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The literature does not provide evidence regarding the most effective mandibular advancement; therefore, the aim of this systematic review with meta-regression was to investigate the effectiveness of different mandibular advancement amounts in reducing apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in OSA patients. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, Google Scholar Beta, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and LILACS to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of MADs in reducing AHI in adult OSA patients. Inclusion criteria were the diagnosis of OSA and success evaluation performed with a polysomnography, follow-up of maximum 12 months, and protrusion amount reported as a percentage of the maximum mandibular advancement. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The success rate of each study was computed: [(mean AHI at baseline-mean AHI after treatment)/mean AHI at baseline]. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs performing advancements from 50 to 89 % of maximum mandibular protrusion were included. The meta-regression analysis showed that advancement amounts higher than 50 % do not significantly influence the success rate (Q = 0.373, p = 0.541). According to the GRADE score system, the quality of evidence resulted to be moderate. CONCLUSION: The AHI improvement resulted to be not proportional to the mandibular advancement increase. It is plausible that the success of the therapy is influenced by a combination of variables that need closer study.

Comparing membranes and bone substitutes in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation. Three-year post-loading results of a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this 3-year post-loading parallel randomised controlled trial is to compare two bone substitutes and resorbable membranes in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation: anorganic bovine bone and porcine collagen membranes (BB group) versus synthetic resorbable bone graft substitute made of pure ß-tricalcium phosphate and porcine pericardium collagen membranes (CJ group). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in need of implant treatment having at least one site with horizontal osseous defect at a private clinic in Rimini, Italy, were included in this study. Patients were randomised to receive either BB or CJ in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation in a submerged approach. Randomisation was computer-generated with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Patients and the outcome assessor were blinded to group assignment. The abutment connection was made after 6 months of healing. The application of the provisional prosthesis was performed after abutment connection and a definitive metal-ceramic prosthesis was placed 6 months post-loading. The patients were followed-up to 3 years post-loading. Primary outcome measures were: implant failure, complications and peri-implant margin bone level changes. Secondary outcome measures were: visual analogue scale (VAS) for functional and aesthetic satisfaction and pink aesthetic score (PES). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with 32 implants were randomly allocated to the BB group and 25 patients with 29 implants to the CJ group. All 50 randomised patients received the treatment as allocated and there were 7 drop-outs in the BB group and 11 drop-outs in the CJ group up to 3 years' post-loading. There were no implant failures. There were six complications in five patients of the BB group and three complications in three patients of the CJ group (relative risk: 1.32, 95% CI from 0.37 to 4.64, P = 1.0000). Radiographic bone loss was 1.61 mm for the BB group and 1.02 mm for the CJ group (difference 0.54 mm, 95% CI from -0.53 to 1.60, P = 0.3100). The functional VAS was 9.0 for the BB group and 9.6 for the CJ group (difference 0.6, 95% CI from -0.4 to 1.5, P = 0.2393). The aesthetic VAS was 9.4 for the BB group and 9.6 for the CJ group (difference 0.2, 95% CI from -0.5 to 0.8, P = 0.6141). PES was 8.7 for the BB group and 8.5 for the CJ group (difference -0.1, 95% CI from -2.9 to 2.7, P = 0.9360). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in this randomised controlled trial comparing anorganic bovine bone with porcine collagen membranes versus synthetic resorbable bone made of pure ß-tricalcium phosphate with pericardium collagen membranes for horizontal augmentation.

Bone augmentation at implant dehiscences and fenestrations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of the bone augmentation procedure at dehiscence or fenestration defects in one-stage implant insertion and to evaluate which is the most effective procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of articles selected from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Google Scholar was performed. Additional studies handsearched and found in printed versions of the principal dental implant journals were included. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcome variables considered were implant failure, complications, aesthetic and functional satisfaction, complete fill of the defect, clinical and radiological bone level variation, and vestibular peri-implant recession. Independent data extraction by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, was completed. All pooled analyses were based on random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 65 full-text articles were examined in detail. Forty-six of the 65 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. Nineteen articles involving 15 trials were identified for inclusion in the review. Only one study was considered to be at a low risk of bias. The included studies involved 396 patients and 535 implants. Comparing the test group using membranes with the control without membranes, a statistically significant difference was obtained for vertical variation of the peri-implant defect; the difference was 1.64 mm (three RCTs, 95% CI from 0.47 to 2.80 mm; P = 0.006, I2 = 0%) favouring the use of a membrane. Non-resorbable polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes obtained a complete clinical fill of defects more frequently than resorbable polylactide/polyglycolide (PLGA) membranes. The odds ratio was 0.15 (two RCTs, 95% CI from 0.04 to 0.64 mm; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%), favouring the use of ePTFE membranes. No differences were observed comparing nonresorbable ePTFE membranes and resorbable collagen membranes. The comparison between crosslinked membranes and collagen native membranes yielded a very high heterogeneity for vertical variation of the peri-implant defect (two RCTs, I2 = 91%, P = 0.001). Dehiscence complications were more frequent using cross-linked membranes but the odds ratio was not significant (three RCTs, odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI from 0.18 to 1.10; P = 0.08, I2 = 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence is not sufficiently robust to determine if any treatment is needed and which is the best treatment for dehiscence or fenestration defects at one-stage implant placement. Only 15 trials were included and the majority are of limited sample size, have short follow-ups as well as having a high risk of bias. The use of a membrane can contribute to the regeneration of the hard tissue in horizontal one-stage augmentation. The complete fill of the defect was obtained more frequently when a non-resorbable ePTFE membrane was used compared to a resorbable PLGA membrane. No differences were observed comparing non-resorbable ePTFE membranes and resorbable collagen membranes. No substantial differences were obtained using different non-resorbable membranes and grafts, and the results were positive for the variables examined. A high result of heterogeneity was observed in studies dealing with cross-linked membranes.

Comparing membranes and bone substitutes in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation. A double-blind randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this parallel randomised controlled trial is to compare two bone substitutes and collagen membranes in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation: anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) and collagen porcine membranes (Bio-Gide) (BB group) versus a synthetic resorbable bone graft substitute made of pure ß-tricalcium phosphate (Ceros TCP) and porcine pericardium collagen membranes (Jason) (CJ group). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in need of implant treatment having at least one site with horizontal osseous defects at a private clinic in Rimini (Italy) were included in this study. Patients were randomised to receive either the BB or CJ treatment. Randomisation was computer-generated with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Patients and the outcome assessor were blinded to group assignment. The main outcome measures were implant failure, complications, clinical bone gain at augmented sites, and complete filling of the bone defect. Secondary outcome measures were chair-time, postoperative pain and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with 32 implants were allocated to the BB group and 25 patients with 29 implants to the CJ group. All 50 randomised patients received the treatment as allocated and there were no dropouts up to 6-months post-loading (12 months post-surgery). There were no failures and there were three complications in the BB group and three complications in the CJ group (relative risk: 1.00, 95% CI from 0.22 to 4.49, P = 1.00). The estimated difference between treatments in the vertical defect bone gain was -0.15 mm (95% CI from -0.65 to 0.35, P = 0.5504) favouring the BB group, and the estimated difference between treatments in the horizontal defect bone gain was -0.27 mm (95%CI from -0.73 to 0.19, P = 0.3851) favouring the BB group. There was no difference in the complete filling of the defect (relative risk: 0.88, 95%CI from 0.58 to 1.34, P = 0.7688). No significant differences were detected for chair-time (P = 0.3524), for VAS pain immediately after surgery (P = 0.5644), VAS pain after 1 week (P = 0.5074) and VAS pain after 2 weeks (P = 0.6950). A slight difference (0.24 mm, 95%CI from 0.0004 to 0.47, P = 0.0464) was detected in radiographic peri-implant bone loss favouring the CJ group. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences, except for radiographic bone loss, were observed in this randomised controlled trial comparing anorganic bovine bone with collagen porcine membranes versus synthetic resorbable bone made of pure ß-tricalcium phosphate with pericardium collagen membranes for horizontal augmentation.