Instructions for the use of L-PRF in different clinical indications.

Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have demonstrated clear benefits across various clinical applications, including alveolar ridge preservation, guided tissue regeneration, guided bone regeneration, sinus floor elevation (both lateral window approach and transcrestal technique), endodontic surgery, the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw bones, and periodontal plastic surgery. To ensure an optimal clinical outcome, clinicians must adhere strictly to the protocol to prepare the APCs and, especially follow evidence-based surgical guidelines, often simple but crucial, to minimize the likelihood of errors. The majority of clinical trials reported on second-generation APCs [the leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) family, including its modifications (A-PRF, A-PRF+, CGF, T-PRF, H-PRF, etc.)]. These second-generation APCs offer additional benefits compared to the first-generation APCs, making them the preferred choice for the development of clinical recommendations. These recommendations have been formulated through a meticulous examination of the available clinical data and the clinical experience of the authors of this paper.

Introduction and overview on autogenous Platelet concentrates.

This special issue on autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) provides clinicians with an overview on the current understanding of the use of these biomaterials for soft and hard-tissue regeneration. The included papers summarize scientific evidence and the clinical findings, presented in simple tables that outline potential benefits including Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). This approach enables clinicians to assess clinical relevance and researchers to identify significant gaps in the literature. The first part provides a comprehensive summary of the basic science surrounding APC, with particular focus on their preparation methods. Clear recommendations are outlined, which are crucial for obtaining high-quality APCs, alongside an exploration of how APCs may influence both soft and hard tissue healing processes. Part 2 delves into the clinical evidence for the potential benefits of APCs across a range of applications: alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor elevation, periodontal plastic surgery, guided tissue regeneration, guided bone regeneration, the healing of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ), and endodontic surgery. In the part 3, the discussion turns to the effects of APCs on the healing of extra-oral wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure injuries, burns, and more. For those clinicians persuaded by the evidence, the fourth section offers a detailed, step-by-step flowchart for each treatment modality, providing a clear guide for clinical application.

Radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation at sites without perforations and sites with perforations managed with a resorbable membrane: A retrospective study.

AIM: To evaluate the radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement at sites without sinus membrane perforation (SMP) and sites with SMP managed with a resorbable membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients and 170 implants (56 perforation, 114 non-perforation) were included. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1) and 6 months after surgery (T2). Post-operative augmentation parameters, including endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) along the implant axis, mean new bone height (NBH) surrounding the implant and augmentation volume (AV), were measured at T1 and T2. RESULTS: At T1, there were no significant differences in ESBG, NBH and AV between the two groups. At T2, although ESBG did not significantly differ between the two groups, NBH (8.50 ± 1.99 mm vs. 9.99 ± 2.52 mm, p = .039) and AV (519.37 ± 258.38 mm3 vs. 700.99 ± 346.53 mm3, p < .001) were significantly lower in the perforation group. The shrinkage of graft material from T1 to T2, including ΔESBG (p = .002), ΔNBH (p < .001) and ΔAV (p < .001), was higher in the perforation group. CONCLUSIONS: SMP during LSFE with simultaneous implant placement is associated with greater resorption of the grafted area at a 6-month follow-up.

Randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 10-year data.

AIM: To compare implant survival and complication rates between shorter and standard-length implants with sinus augmentation and restored with single crowns, at 10 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and one patients (137 implants) with a ridge height of 5-7 mm in the posterior maxilla were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: shorter implants (6 mm) (group short [GS]) or standard-length implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft [GG]). Following the insertion of final restorations, patients were regularly recalled for up to 10 years. Assessed outcomes encompassed implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Non-parametric statistical analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For the 5- to 10-year follow-up period, 77 patients with 105 implants (GS: 36 patients/48 implants; GG: 41/57) were available for re-examination (drop-out rate 21%). Implant survival rates at the patient level were 96.0% (GS; 2 failures) and 100% (GG) (inter-group p = .24). Median MBLs amounted to 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 3.25; GS) and 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 4.55; GG) (inter-group p = .73). Technical complications predominantly occurred within the first 5 years (inter-group p > .05). Peri-implantitis rates were 4.2% (GS) and 13.3% (GG) (intergroup p = .37). Median OHIP-49 scores were 7.00 (0.00; 39.00; GS) and 9.00 (0.00; 196; GG) (inter-group p = .61) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on similar 10-year implant survival rates, reduced patient morbidity and lower costs, the use of shorter dental implants might well serve as an alternative treatment concept to longer implants placed in conjunction with sinus grafting for patients with a limited ridge height in the posterior maxilla. Study register: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01030523.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous hydrophilic implants placement: A retrospective study of 2-5 years.

AIMS: To investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a chemically modified sandblasted large-grit acid-etched implant (hydrophilic) in lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE), compared with a conventional one (hydrophobic). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study design was adopted. Patients who received LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were recruited. According to different types of implant surfaces, patients were divided into two groups (the hydrophilic group and the hydrophobic group). Implant survival rate (SR), endo-sinus bone stability on the radiographs, mean probing depths, percentage of bleeding on probing, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients with 180 implants (hydrophilic:101, hydrophobic:79) in 119 maxillary sinuses were included. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 5 years. Three hydrophobic implants and one hydrophilic implant in four different patients failed. The SR of the hydrophilic group was higher than that of the hydrophobic group but without a significant difference (p > .05). The change and change rate of endo-sinus bone height (ΔESBH and RΔESBH) and bone volume (ΔESBV and RΔESBV) in the hydrophilic group were less than those in the hydrophobic group, with a significant difference at 6 months after implantation. No other significant difference was found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, both hydrophilic and hydrophobic implants were suitable for LSFE with predictable clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, hydrophilic implants could contribute to the grafted endo-sinus bone stability during healing time.

Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of a custom-made, fully guided implant system for flapless crestal sinus floor elevation: Accuracy and patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided flapless implant surgery using a light-cured surgical guide (FG group) with partially guided open flap surgery (PG group) in the posterior maxilla when performing simultaneous sinus floor elevation in terms of the accuracy, time requirements, and patient/clinician-reported outcomes (PROMs and CROMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 56 tissue-level implants were placed with crestal sinus floor elevation in 56 patients at single-tooth sites, with 28 implants allocated to the PG group and 28 to the FG group. The deviations of the placed implants from the virtually planned positions were measured at the implant platform and apex and for the angular deviation. The presurgical preparation time and the duration of surgery were measured. PROMs and CROMs were made by administering questionnaires at multiple time points. RESULTS: Horizontal deviations at the platform and apex and the angular deviation were significantly smaller in the FG group than the PG group (p < .05). Presurgical preparation and surgery times were significantly shorter in the FG group (p < .001). Patient satisfaction and willingness to receive repeat treatment were significantly better in the FG group than in the PG group (p < .005 and .025, respectively). Clinicians were more satisfied in the FG group than the PG group (p < .05). CONCLUSION: When placing an implant with sinus floor elevation, the flapless approach using a fully guided surgical system can be more accurate, faster, and increase the satisfaction of both the clinician and patient compared to the partially guided surgery.

A nomogram prediction of implant apical non-coverage on bone-added transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk indicators and develop and validate a nomogram prediction model of implant apical non-coverage by comprehensively analyzing clinical and radiographic factors in bone-added transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 260 implants in 195 patients receiving bone-added TSFE were included in the study. The population was divided into a development (180 implants) and a validation (80 implants) cohort. According to 6 months post-surgery radiographic images, implants were categorized as "apical non-coverage" or "apical covered." The association of risk factors including clinical and radiographic parameters with implant apical non-coverage was assessed using regression analyses. A nomogram prediction model was developed, and its validation and discriminatory ability were analyzed. RESULTS: The nomogram predicting bone-added TSFE's simultaneously placed implant's apex non-coverage after 6 months. This study revealed that sinus angle, endo-sinus bone gain, implant protrusion length, graft contact walls, and distal angle were predictors of implant apical non-coverage. The generated nomogram showed a strong predictive capability (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.845), confirmed by internal validation using 10-fold cross-validation (Median AUC of 0.870) and temporal validation (AUC = 0.854). The calibration curve and decision curve analysis demonstrated good performance and high net benefit of the nomogram, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of the present nomogram is suitable for predicting the apex non-coverage of implants placed simultaneously with bone-added TSFE after 6 months.

A randomized clinical trial of phycogenic materials for sinus grafting with hydroxyapatite versus biphasic calcium phosphate: 2 years clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess in a prospective randomized trial two phycogenic bone substitutes-biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) versus almost pure hydroxyapatite (HA)-for their volume stability and clinical implications after sinus floor elevation (SFE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients requiring lateral-window SFE 6 months prior to implant surgery were randomized to a BCP or HA group. As primary outcome, the grafts were analyzed for volume stability, using four cone-beam computed tomography scans obtained immediately/6/12/24 months after SFE. Secondary outcomes were implant survivval, success, periotest values, oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP-G14), and pain (VAS). RESULTS: Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test revealed normal distribution of samples (p = .200). At 6/12/24 months, the augmented volumes decreased to 96/92/90% (HA) or 99/96/96% (BCP). Volume changes were significantly a factor of time (p < .001; generalized linear model with repeated measures) and reached significantly lower values in HA group (p = .018). Significant intergroup difference in volume losses was notable at 24 months (p = .021; t-test for independent samples). Periotest values decreased from -3/-4.1 (HA/BCP) after implant placement to -6.3/-4.5 (HA/BCP) after 6 months. OHIP scores diverged at 2 months (HA: 9.5; BCP: 5.2) and largely resolved by 24 months (HA: 1.3; BCP: 1.9). VAS scores were comparable, 2.2 at 1 week after SFE being their highest mean level. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years, both groups experienced no biological or technical complications, demonstrating a consistent healing trajectory without notable symptoms. Although no significant differences were observed in implant stability and survival, BCP demonstrated higher volume stability than HA.

Three-dimensional changes and influencing factors of tent space following osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting: A 48-month retrospective radiographic study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the three-dimensional stability and morphologic changes of tent space after the osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) procedures without bone grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six implants placed using the OSFE technique with simultaneous implant placement without bone grafts were included in this retrospective study. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the augmented sinuses were obtained pre- and postoperatively up to 48 months of follow-up. The maxillary sinus cavity profiles were outlined using three-dimensional virtual reconstruction and superimposition of CBCT scans. The three-dimensional changes in the tent space were measured. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to explore potential factors. RESULTS: The implant survival rate was 97.8%. The mean volume of remaining tent space immediately after surgery was 96.8 ± 70.5 mm3, shrinking to 31.0 ± 24.9 mm3 after 48 months, while the mean percentage of remaining tent space volume decreased to 29.1 ± 20.7%. The tent space volume and the percentage of residual tent space volume only decreased significantly within 12 months after surgery (p = .008, .013). GEE results indicated positive correlations between the percentage of remaining tent space volume and implant protrusion length (p = .000) and apical height (p = .000), with a negative correlation between the sinus floor area immediately after surgery (p = .002) and the healing time (p = .022). CONCLUSIONS: The volume of the tent space rapidly shrank after OSFE without bone grafts. Several factors might influence the tent space stability. Long-term clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to further validate the results.

Implant stability and clinical outcome between implant placement using internal sinus floor elevation with alloplastic bone material grafting and without grafting: A 1-year randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare implant stability and clinical outcome in implant placement between osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) which consisted of 30% of hydroxyapatite (HA) and 70% of beta-tricalcium phosphate (ß -TCP) grafting material and OSFE without using bone grafting material. The research questions is whether the BCP provides any benefit in OSFE or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (30 implants) with a single edentulous area of upper premolar or molar were randomly separated into OSFE with BCP (n = 15) and OSFE without grafting (n = 15). The patients were reevaluated 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after implant loading. The clinical assessments (implant stability quotient (ISQ), implant survival-failure rate, and surgical complication) were analyzed. Together with radiographic assessments in 2D (endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), mean marginal bone change (MMBC)) and 3D (endo-sinus bone gain in CBCT (ESBG-CT)) were evaluated, with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 months of functional loading and prosthetic complication. RESULTS: 20 remaining implants (OSFE with BCP, n = 10; OSFE without grafting, n = 10) were analyzed. Mean ISQ was 79.18 ± 3.43 in 1-year follow-up (ISQ; OSFE with BCP = 78.72 ± 3.46, OSFE without grafting = 79.65 ± 3.52). ISQ in both groups increased steadily without significant differences in each follow-up. (p = 0.56). In radiographic evaluation, at 6-, 9-, and 12-month, OSFE without grafting group showed statistically significant lower MMBC (p < 0.05). The 1-year clinical results showed that 2 implants failed in OSFE with BCP, and 1 implant failed in OSFE without grafting. CONCLUSIONS: Graft material "BCP" (HA30:TCP70) coupled with OSFE presents no extraordinary benefit in implant stability, clinical and radiographic outcome in 1-year follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinically, OSFE with grafting materials provides no additional benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20210517008 (date of registration: May 17, 2021).

Assessment of the efficacy of autologous blood preparations in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of autologous blood preparations, namely Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), and Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF), in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery. The focus was on their impact on new bone formation, maxillary sinus floor height, and soft tissue healing. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases up to April 2024. This systematic review included both randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of autologous blood preparations in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery. The primary outcomes measured were the percentage of new bone formation, maxillary sinus floor height, and he percentage of soft tissue area. Data from the selected studies were extracted and analyzed to determine the impact of autologous blood preparations on these outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I, and meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 software to calculate effect sizes and integrate results from multiple studies. RESULTS: Among the 507 screened articles, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the application of PRP significantly increased new bone formation during maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery (primary outcome, MD = 4.40, CI = 0.37 to 8.44, P = 0.03), as well as improving maxillary sinus floor height elevation (secondary outcome, MD = 1.00, CI = 0.78 to 1.23, P < 0.00001). The absence of PRP during surgery had a statistically significant effect on the percentage of soft tissue area (secondary outcome, MD= -5.25, CI= -7.29 to 3.20, P < 0.00001). However, based on the research findings, PRF did not show significant effects on enhancing new bone formation, maxillary sinus floor height elevation, and promoting soft tissue regeneration. CONCLUSIONS: PRP demonstrates efficacy in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery by enhancing new bone formation and increasing sinus height. Further studies are needed to validate the outcomes of PRF and CGF.

A graftless maxillary sinus lifting approach with simultaneous dental implant placement: a prospective clinical study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to introduce a graftless sinus lifting approach with simultaneous dental implant placement in the alveolus of the posterior maxilla and compare this approach's outcomes in freshly extracted sockets versus healed sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on 60 patients aged between 27 and 59 years old, requiring dental implants in the posterior maxilla, and diagnosed with reduced vertical bone height (30 with freshly extracted sockets (group A) and the remaining 30 with healed sockets (group B). Before the sinus lifting approach, a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken, followed by another CBCT at least one-year post-sinus lifting (range: 12-36 months). Biological and mechanical complications were assessed, and the primary implant stability was measured using the Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ). Parametric data were analyzed using an independent t-test for intergroup comparisons, with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among groups concerning gender, placement side, and follow-up. All dental implants demonstrated high survival rates with no observed biological or mechanical complications. Moreover, the primary implant stability was satisfactory, and there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.38). In terms of new intrasinus bone formation, both groups exhibited satisfactory and successful outcomes, with increased new bone formation in group A. However, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.26). Regarding the vertical sinus floor elevation without new bone formation, group B showed (0.11 ± 0.64) mm of intrasinus implant height without bone formation, while group A showed an increment of bone formation above the intrasinus implant (0.22 ± 0.33) mm, with no statistically significant difference between both groups (P = 0.30). CONCLUSION: Our approach proves to be predictable, low-cost, and efficient option for sinus lift procedures, demonstrating high survival rates with acceptable primary implant stability. Moreover, it yields satisfactory outcomes in terms of new intrasinus bone formation, both in freshly extracted and healed sockets. Consequently, our approach holds promise as a reliable procedure for sinus lifting with simultaneous dental implant placement.

The Use of Allograft Bone in the Lateral Approach of Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficiency of using allografts for sinus lift. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was written under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Three electronic databases were screened until October 2023. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed for median bone volume and implant survival rate. Results: From 321 articles retrieved, 7 articles were included in this review. A comparison between freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) for mean bone volume indicated a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.17 [-0.69, 0.36] (95% confidence interval (CI)), p = 0.53. For implant survival rate, a comparison was made between FDBA and autogenous bone indicating a risk ratio (RR) of 1.00 [0.96, 1.05] (95% CI), p = 1.00. Conclusions: The available evidence suggested that allograft bone can be used in sinus lift procedures. The results obtained are insufficient to compare with other types of bone graft, requiring a longer follow-up time. Future clinical trials are needed in order to evaluate the advantages of using allograft bone.

How to avoid intraoperative and postoperative complications in maxillary sinus elevation.

Maxillary sinus floor elevation, via the lateral approach, is one of the most predictable bone augmentation procedures performed in implant dentistry. but both intra- and postoperative complications can occur, and some of them are severe. Our aim is as follows: To review the pertinent literature on the topic, especially assessing the risk factors related to complications. To give clinical recommendations to minimize intra- and postoperative complications with the ultimate scope of improving the standard of clinical care and patient safety.

Do autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have a role in intra-oral bone regeneration? A critical review of clinical guidelines on decision-making process.

In the past decades, personalized regenerative medicine has gained increased attention. Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) such as PRP, PRGF, and L-PRF, all serving as a source of a large variety of cells and growth factors that participate in hard and soft tissue healing and regeneration, could play a significant role in regenerative periodontal procedures. This narrative review evaluated the relative impact of APCs in alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor augmentation, and the regeneration of bony craters around teeth, both as a single substitute or in combination with a xenograft. L-PRF has a significant beneficial effect on alveolar ridge preservation (bone quality). The data for PRGF are less convincing, and PRP is controversial. L-PRF can successfully be used as a single substitute during transcrestal (≥3.5 mm bone gain) as well as 1-stage lateral window sinus floor elevation (>5 mm bone gain). For PRGF and especially PRP the data are very scarce. In the treatment of bony craters around teeth, during open flap debridement, L-PRF as a single substitute showed significant adjunctive benefits (e.g., >PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >crater depth reduction). The data for PRP and PRGF were non-conclusive. Adding PRP or L-PRF to a xenograft during OFD resulted in additional improvements (>PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >bone fill), for PRGF no data were found. Autologous platelet concentrates demonstrated to enhance bone and soft tissue healing in periodontal regenerative procedures. The data for L-PRF were most convincing. L-PRF also has the advantage of a greater simplicity of production, and its 100% autologous character.

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.

Effectiveness and complications of transcrestal sinus floor elevation using the cushioned grind-out technique: A retrospective cohort study with up to 7 years of follow-up.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and complications of the cushioned grind-out technique. The primary outcome was endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), while secondary outcomes included the Schneiderian membrane perforation rate and mid- to long-term implant survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we compared the cushioned grind-out technique with the classic osteotome technique, establishing statistical models to assess ESBG, membrane perforation rate and implant survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients and 340 implants were included. The mean ESBG was 5.31 mm for the cushioned grind-out group and 4.64 mm for the osteotome group. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that the cushioned grind-out technique significantly facilitated ESBG (p = .028). Nineteen preparation sites experienced membrane perforation, with rates of 5.5% and 6.4% for the cushioned grind-out and osteotome groups, respectively. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .920). Additionally, the cumulative survival rate of the implants for 7 years was 95.2% and 91.4%, respectively, with the surgical technique not significantly influencing the results. CONCLUSIONS: With 6 months to 7 years of post-prosthetic restoration review data, our findings show that the cushioned grind-out technique facilitates a higher ESBG, with no significant difference in membrane perforation or implant failure rate.

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.

Implant failure and associated risk factors of transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate early and late implant loss rates after transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and to identify the risk factors related to these failures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients treated with TSFE and simultaneous implant placement during October 2015 to March 2019 were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 802 patients with 976 implants met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic information was collected from medical records and image software. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards frailty regression models were performed to identify potential risk factors associated with early and late implant loss after TSFE. RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative implant survival rate was 96.9% (95% CI 95.8%-98.0%). Twelve implants in 12 patients were lost before or at the abutment connection, while 24 implants in 24 patients were lost after functional loading. The Cox frailty regression analyses indicated that two factors were correlated with early implant loss: TSFE with grafting materials, and operators with less clinical experience. As for late implant loss, RBH ≤6 mm, male sex, and certain implant brands were associated with a significantly increased failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement is a predictable treatment option in the atrophic maxilla. The presence of grafting materials and the lack of clinical experience of the surgeon were possibly associated with early implant loss, while low RBH, male sex, and certain implant brands tended to increase late implant loss.

Effect of the implant apical exposure and coverage < or ≥ 2 mm bone graft on transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 1- to 7-year retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the effect of the apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage less than or greater than 2 mm on implant survival rate and peri-implant bone and soft tissue remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 264 implants in 180 patients who had undergone transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective cohort study. Radiographic assessment was used to categorize the implants into three groups based on apical implant bone height (ABH): ≤ 0 mm, < 2 mm, or ≥ 2 mm. The implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) during short-term (1-3 years) and mid- to long-term (4-7 years) follow-up, and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the effect of implant apex coverage after TSFE. RESULTS: Group 1 had 56 implants (ABH ≤ 0 mm), group 2 had 123 implants (ABH > 0 mm, but < 2 mm), and group 3 had 85 implants (ABH ≥ 2 mm). There was no significant difference in the implant survival rate between groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (p = 0.646, p = 0.824, respectively). The MBL during short-term and mid- to long-term follow-up indicated that apex coverage could not be considered a risk factor. Furthermore, apex coverage did not have a significant effect on other clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations, our study found that implant apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage levels less than or greater than 2 mm, did not significantly affect implant survival, short-term or mid- to long-term MBL, or peri-implant soft tissue outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on 1- to 7-year data, the study suggests that implant apical exposure and coverage levels of less than or greater than 2 mm bone graft are both valid options for TSFE cases.