Bone augmentation using titanium mesh: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To review and compare the available literature on bone regeneration using titanium mesh and map the current evidence on bone gain outcomes and complications while comparing this scaffold with collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify randomised and non-randomised prospective controlled clinical trials that involved the use of titanium mesh in at least one arm, with outcomes including complications and vertical and/or horizontal bone gain. The focused questions were defined as follows: What are the outcomes of using titanium mesh in ridge augmentation compared to other types of barrier membrane, and what is the complication rate (membrane exposure and infection) when titanium mesh is used in these procedures? RESULTS: A total of 22 articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Overall, the studies that measured bone gain resulted in 3.36 mm vertical (196 subjects; 95% confidence interval 2.44 to 4.64 mm, range 1.4 to 5.7 mm) and 3.26 mm horizontal augmentation (81 subjects; 95% confidence interval 2.93 to 3.63 mm, range 2.6 to 3.7 mm), with variability among studies. The most commonly noted complication was mesh exposure, regardless of the type of mesh used, and the second most common was graft failure. The overall pooled complications rate reported in clinical trials was 10.8%. The meta-analysis comparing titanium mesh and collagen membranes, controlling for the type of bone regeneration (staged or simultaneous with implant placement), failed to show a significant difference in horizontal bone gain between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study and acknowledging the heterogeneity among the articles included, titanium mesh can serve as a feasible protective scaffold for bone regeneration with a relatively acceptable complication rate and in defects requiring around 4 mm 3D reconstruction. Data on patient-reported outcomes were scarce. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: None of the authors have any financial interests, either directly or indirectly, in the products or information mentioned in the present article.

Indications for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla: A multidisciplinary consensus among experts in the field utilising the modified Delphi method.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned. RESULTS: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable.

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Evaluation of Extraction Socket Management Comparing a Wound Dressing and a Soft Tissue Substitute.

Postextraction bone grafting and implant placement help preserve alveolar bone volume. Collagen wound dressings and soft tissue graft substitutes may help protect extraction socket bone grafts and provide better gingival contours. This randomized, controlled, multicenter, and double-blinded study was conducted to compare a control (wound dressing) and a test (soft tissue graft) substitute in nearly intact extraction sockets. Both test and control sockets were grafted with a xenogeneic bone graft. Graft containment, extraction socket soft tissue gap closure, gingival contour, and gingival thickness were examined over 16 weeks, at which time implants were placed. Healing was uneventful for both groups, and there was no significant difference (P < .05) between the times required to close the extraction socket soft tissue gap (~80% of sites closed by 8 weeks). Bone grafts were covered and contained longer in the test group (~4 weeks vs ~2 weeks), with less contour disruption out to 4 weeks; however, at implant placement, soft tissue contours in both groups were comparable, and soft tissue thicknesses were not significantly different.

Radiographic protrusion of dental implants in the maxillary sinus and nasal fossae: A multidisciplinary consensus utilising the modified Delphi method.

The aim of the present study was to generate an international and multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of implant protrusion into the maxillary sinuses and nasal fossae. A total of 31 experts participated, 23 of whom were experts in implantology (periodontologists, maxillofacial surgeons and implantologists), 6 were otolaryngologists and 2 were radiologists. All the participants were informed of the current scientific knowledge on the topic based on a systematic search of the literature. A list of statements was created and divided into three surveys: one for all participants, one for implant providers and radiologists and one for otolaryngologists and radiologists. A consensus was reached on 15 out of 17 statements. According to the participants, osseointegrated implants protruding radiographically into the maxillary sinus or nasal fossae require as much monitoring and maintenance as implants fully covered by bone. In the event of symptoms of sinusitis, collaboration between implant providers and otolaryngologists is required. Implant removal should be considered only after pharmacological and surgical management of sinusitis have failed.

Clinical outcomes of short implants (≤ 6 mm) placed between two adjacent teeth/implants or in the most distal position: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether implant position (adjacent to teeth/implants vs most distal position in the arch) influences the clinical outcomes of short (≤ 6 mm) non-splinted implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic electronic search of human randomised clinical trials and prospective cohort studies was performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) databases. A manual search of implant-related journals was also performed. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare survival rate, marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications based on implant position. RESULTS: Overall, 11 studies were included to give a total of 388 non-splinted short implants (269 adjacent, 119 distal) followed up over a period ranging from 12 to 120 months. No significant differences in survival were found when comparing adjacent and distal positioning for both arches, and no significant differences were found for marginal bone loss or prosthetic complications between groups regardless of position. CONCLUSIONS: Short implants supporting single crowns presented similar outcomes when placed in the most distal position in the arch or between adjacent teeth or other implants.

An Updated Decision Tree for Vertical Bone Augmentation.

Vertical bone augmentation (VBA) procedures for dental implant placement are biologically and technically challenging. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on VBA have failed to identify clinical procedures that provide superior results for treatment of the vertical ridge deficiencies. A decision tree was developed to guide clinicians on selecting treatment options based on reported vertical bone gains (< 5 mm, 5 to 8 mm, > 8 mm). The choice of a particular augmentation technique will also depend on other factors, including the size and morphology of the defect, location, and clinician or patient preferences. Surgeons should consider the advantages and disadvantages of each option for the clinical situation and select an approach with low complications, low cost, and the highest likelihood of success.

Extraction Socket Grafting and Ridge Augmentation Failures Associated with Clindamycin Antibiotic Therapy: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if penicillin allergy and/or clindamycin therapy may contribute to a higher incidence of postsurgical infections after bone augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients between 2014 and 2019 who received bone augmentation procedures (socket grafting [SG]; ridge augmentation [RA]) prior to placement of dental implants. All the grafting procedures were performed under preoperative and postoperative oral antibiotic coverage with either amoxicillin or clindamycin for patients who reported penicillin allergy. Infections associated with the bone augmentation procedures were recorded. RESULTS: In this study, 1,814 patients received 2,961 bone augmentation procedures (2,530 SG, 431 RA). In the 2,530 SG procedures, 270 (10.7%) were associated with a penicillin allergy. Infections occurred in 91 of the 2,530 SG sites (3.6%). However, the infection rate was 10.7% (29 SG sites) for clindamycin and only 2.7% (62 SG sites) for amoxicillin (P < .02). In the 431 RA procedures, 71 (16.5%) were associated with a penicillin allergy. Overall infections occurred in 31 of the 431 sites (7.2%). However, the infection rate was 22.5% (16 RA sites) for clindamycin and only 4.2% for amoxicillin (15 RA sites; P < .01). Penicillin-allergic patients taking clindamycin demonstrated a higher risk of infection with a risk ratio of 6.9 (95% CI) and 4.5 (95% CI) compared with nonallergic patients taking amoxicillin for RA and SG, respectively. CONCLUSION: Penicillin allergy and the use of clindamycin following SG and RA procedures was associated with a higher rate of infection and may be a risk factor for bone augmentation complications.