ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients rehabilitated using a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension or two implants supporting two single crowns. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review of relevant literature published from 2000 was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases. Moreover, a manual search was performed. A meta-analysis of the resulting data was carried out. Peri-implant marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, prevalence of technical and mechanical complications, implant survival rate, and prosthesis survival rate were assessed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a non-statistically significant change in the peri-implant marginal bone level and probing pocket depth in the cantilever group and revealed a non-significant prevalence of technical complications, showing a 27% rate in the cantilever group. The analysis of the prosthesis survival rate in the cantilever group showed a mean survival rate of 99% while the comparison of the implant survival between the two groups revealed an odds ratio of 0.50. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension does not result in lower implant survival rate if compared with two implants supporting two single crowns. Moreover, a high prosthesis survival rate was observed in the cantilever group even if the high prevalence of complications should be carefully considered by the clinician.
ABSTRACT
In cases of severe horizontal atrophy, implant placement requires bone reconstruction procedures. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the outcomes of bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement using the shell technique to the outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) in cases of severely horizontal bone atrophy. This study was designed as a monocentric, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial with a six-month follow-up. Among the primary outcomes of this study, peri-implant bone regeneration and peri-implant bone defect closure were selected. Forty-four patients were recruited and equally divided between two groups. In the GRB group, a horizontal regeneration of 2.31 ± 0.23 mm was observed opposed to a horizontal regeneration of 2.36 ± 0.17 mm in the shell group (p = 0.87). A volumetric increase was observed in both groups, with an increase of 0.30 ± 0.12 cm3 in the GBR group and an increase of 0.39 ± 0.09 cm3 in the shell group, highlighting a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.02). In conclusion, bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement using the shell technique or guided bone regeneration in horizontal bone atrophy are both predictable therapeutic options.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the pediatric oncology population, oral mucositis as a consequence of chemotherapy is a highly prevalent complication which strongly affects both the quality of life and treatment possibilities of the patients. Still, the etiopathological mechanisms carrying to its development are not fully understood, although a possible role of oral dysbiosis has been previously investigated with unclear conclusions. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence on the role of microbiota in the development of oral mucositis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Three electronic databases were searched up until April 2023 and a following manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and reviews. Studies reporting microbiological and clinical data of pediatric patients treated by antineoplastic drugs were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting an average mucositis prevalence of 57,6%. Candida albicans infections were frequently observed in studies performing microbiological analysis on oral lesions, in contrast with the low rate detection of the Herpes simplex viruses. Bacterial species such as coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Streptococcus viridans were detected more frequently on lesion sites. Studies reporting a quantitative analysis of the general flora did not show comparable results. Risk of bias assessment among studies was generally considered high or very high. CONCLUSIONS: While the specific role of certain microbiological agents, such as Candida albicans, was frequently reported among studies, data regarding the general dynamics of oral microbiota in the development of oral mucositis are lacking in the current literature. Thus, more studies are needed to provide the knowledge required in order to improve protocols for the prevention and treatment of this threatening complication.