Membranes over the lateral window in sinus augmentation procedures: a two-arm and split-mouth randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether or not, among other factors, membrane-coverage of antrostomy defects improves implant survival in sinus augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a two-arm and split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial on 104 and 5 patients respectively. In the two-arm study, antrostomy defects were membrane-covered in 66 procedures and uncovered in 69, before placing a total of 265 implants that were followed up for 1 year. In the split-mouth study, following bilateral sinus augmentation, antrostomy defects were membrane-covered on one side and left uncovered on the contra-lateral. Bone biopsies from each sinus were histologically analysed 6 months later. RESULTS: In the two-arm study, implant survival rates were similar (p = 0.08) in the membrane-covered (96.1%) and uncovered (94.2%) groups. In the split-mouth study, bone augmentation was similar in both groups (p = 0.52). Delayed implant placement (p = 0.04), thick Schneider's membrane (≥2 mm) (p < 0.01), treatment for hypertension (p = 0.04) and non-smoking (p = 0.01) seemed to be associated with lower risk of implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in sinus lifting procedures could be influenced significantly by timing of implant placement, Schneider's membrane thickness, antihypertensive treatment and smoking habits, but not by antrostomy membrane coverage.

Effect of time-dependent ibuprofen administration on the post operatory after impacted third molar extraction: a cross-over randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate time-dependent administration of ibuprofen in a lower third molar extraction model. METHODS: Eleven patients requiring bilateral surgical removal of lower third molars were recruited and randomized into a blinded crossover randomized controlled trial. For 3 days after surgery, the control group was prescribed ibuprofen 400 mg every 8 h. On the other hand, the experimental group received also ibuprofen 400 mg at breakfast and lunch, replacing the dinner intake with a placebo. Pain measurements (Visual Analog Scale from 0 to 10) were recorded at baseline, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. Facial swelling and trismus were also measured at baseline, 24, and 72 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Postoperative swelling and pain perception did not show significative difference between the control and experimental groups at 24, 48, and 72 h. Trismus was significantly lower in the control group than in the experimental group at 72 h postoperatively (p = 0.008). Rescue medication consumption seemed to be comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Eliminating night time ibuprofen might be insignificant for pain control after third molar extraction.

Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regeneration.

BACKGROUND: Implant rehabilitation of posterior mandibular defects is frequently associated to a horizontal bone loss. There exist several regenerative techniques to supply this bone deficiency, one of which is the Periosteal Pocket Flap Technique (PPF) proposed by Steigmann et al. to treat small horizontal bone defects. The present study proposes a modification of this technique based on the concurrent use of PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of the PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and PRGF in comparison with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures. METHODS: Nine patients were enroled in the study (7 women and 2 men, mean age: 53 ± 2.74 years) and allocated to PPF or GBR. In both groups implant placement was performed simultaneously to bone regeneration. Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing. Moreover, horizontal bone gain (mm), graft surface area (mm2) and graft volume (mm3) were evaluated. RESULTS: Nine surgeries were performed: 6 PPF and 3 GBR. Regarding clinical outcomes, operative time was significative greater in GBR group than in PPF group (51.67 ± 3.51 min vs. 37 ± 5.69 min; p = 0.008). Postoperative pain was higher in GBR compared to PPF (p = 0.011). Regarding radiographical results, there were not significant differences in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 ± 1.8 mm; GBR: 9.28 ± 0.42 mm), surface area (PPF: 693.33 ± 118.73 mm2; GBR: 655.61 ± 102.43 mm2), and volume (PPF: 394.97 ± 178.72 mm3; GBR: 261.66 ± 118 mm3) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates that the combination of autograft/xenograft and PRGF in PPF technique is a simpler, cheaper, and faster technique than GBR technique for achieving moderate lateral bone augmentation in implant treatment. Future randomised clinical studies are needed to confirm the results.

Nasal Floor Elevation for Implant Treatment in the Atrophic Premaxilla: A Within-Patient Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding success of implants placed in atrophic premaxilla using the nasal floor elevation technique. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare implants placed in augmented bone in the anterior maxilla using the nasal floor elevation technique with implants placed in the maxillary sinus region using the sinus lift technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A within-patient controlled clinical trial was performed on 14 patients receiving 78 implants. The implants were assigned to one of two study groups on the basis of implant location. A total of 37 implants were placed in the nasal fossa region (NF group), and 41 implants were placed in the maxillary sinus region (MS group). Patients were followed up for 4.5 ± 2.2 years, with comparable follow-up times for implants in NF and MS groups (4.7 ± 2.1 and 4.9 ± 2.1 years, respectively; p > .05). Treatment outcomes were assessed and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Implant success rate was 89.2% in the NF group and 95.0% in the MS group, with no statistically significant difference between them (p > .05). No nasal or sinus membrane perforation or other complications were reported within the follow-up period. Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of residual bone height, augmented bone height, and implant diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal floor elevation is an effective and safe procedure that can be used for implant placement in atrophic premaxilla with success rates that are comparable to those of implants placed in the maxillary sinus.