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.

Statements and Recommendations for Guided Bone Regeneration: Consensus Report of the Guided Bone Regeneration Symposium Held in Bologna, October 15 to 16, 2016.

INTRODUCTION: In the past 10 years, long-term studies have demonstrated that guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a successful and reliable technique for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation, but strict and rigorous protocols must be adopted. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Because no reports have yet been published with statements and clinical recommendations for GBR, a closed meeting of all authors was organized to discuss this matter during a GBR symposium held in Bologna (Italy) in October 2016. The authors focused on the findings of systematic and narrative reviews, prepared before the meeting, covering aspects of the clinical management of GBR techniques. Successively, a discussion based on the scientific evidence and on the experts' opinions led to the formulation of statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research. RESULTS: To avoid complications and to optimize outcomes, the following factors should be considered by clinicians: patient selection; analysis of defect type; blood supply; antibiotic treatment; flap passivation; delayed implant placement; combination of autogenous bone and xenograft or allograft; rigorous fixation of membranes; removal after 6 to 9 months; analysis of complications; soft-tissue management; and high care in scarred sites and in esthetic areas. CONCLUSIONS: The present consensus report reviewed the scientific evidence and provided specific guidelines and recommendations for clinical practice and the different approaches to GBR techniques to ensure surgical success and predictable outcomes.

A Novel Approach for the Coronal Advancement of the Buccal Flap.

An adequate flap release is necessary to perform a tension-free suture over an augmented area. This is a fundamental requisite to attain and maintain a reliable biological seal, protecting the graft from bacterial contamination during the healing period. In the posterior mandible, in particular, the use of conventional periosteal incisions is not always sufficient for a proper buccal flap passivation, as they are often limited by anatomical factors. This article reports a series of 76 consecutive cases of vertical guided bone regeneration in the posterior mandible introducing a novel surgical technique to enhance the coronal advancement of the buccal flap in a safe and predictable way.

Expanded vs. dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in vertical ridge augmentation around dental implants: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized controlled trial was designed to test the performance of titanium-reinforced dense polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane vs. titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane in achieving vertical bone regeneration, both associated with a composite grafting material. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled 23 patients requiring bone augmentation with guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures for placing implants in atrophic posterior mandibles (available bone height <7 mm). Implants were inserted and left to protrude from the bone level to achieve the programmed amount of vertical regeneration. Defects were filled with a composite bone graft (50% autologous bone and 50% mineralized bone allograft) and randomly covered with either an e-PTFE membrane (control) or a d-PTFE membrane (test). Membrane removal was performed after 6 months, and changes in bone height were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-eight implants were inserted in 26 mandibular sites contextually to vertical ridge augmentation procedures. The healing period was uneventful in all sites, and the vertical defects were satisfactorily filled with a newly formed hard tissue. Mean defect fill after 6 months was 5.49 mm (SD ± 1.58) at test sites and 4.91 mm (SD ± 1.78) at control sites. The normalized data (percentage changes against baseline) did not show any statistically significant difference between test and control groups (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data from this study, both d-PTFE and e-PTFE membranes showed identical clinical results in the treatment of vertical bone defects around implants, using the GBR technique. The membrane removal procedure was easier to perform in the d-PTFE group than in the e-PTFE group.

Malpositioned osseointegrated implants relocated with segmental osteotomies: a retrospective analysis of a multicenter case series with a 1- to 15-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This multicenter case series evaluates retrospectively the clinical outcomes of malpositioned implants surgically relocated in a more convenient position by segmental osteotomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors who published, on indexed journals or books, works about malpositioned implant correction by segmental osteotomies were contacted. Five centers, out of 11 selected, accepted to participate in this study. The dental records of patients who underwent implant relocation procedures were reviewed. Implant survival rates were analyzed and a blinded assessor examined clinical photos and periapical radiographs to evaluate esthetic outcome (pink esthetic score [PES]) and changes of marginal bone level over time. Patients were requested to fill a verbal rating scale form about discomfort, compliance, and satisfaction related to the procedure. RESULTS: Fifteen malpositioned implants relocated by segmental osteotomies were followed for a period ranging from 1 to 15 years (mean 6.0 ± 3.9 years). The overall implant survival rate from baseline to the last follow-up visit was 100%. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.36 mm at the 12-month follow-up visit and no relevant further changes were observed at the following examinations. Significant esthetic improvement was recorded at 1-year examination with PES evaluation (p < .0001). Patients' feedback described this procedure as not excessively invasive and uncomfortable, reporting a high final satisfaction rate. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that implant relocation with segmental osteotomies could be an effective alternative method to correct the position of unrestorable malpositioned implants in a single-stage surgery.

Management of a coronally advanced lingual flap in regenerative osseous surgery: a case series introducing a novel technique.

One of the crucial factors in the success of guided bone regeneration procedures is the correct management of the soft tissues. This allows for stable primary wound closure without tension, which can result in premature exposure of the augmentation area, jeopardizing the final outcome. The use of vertical and periosteal incisions to passivate buccal and lingual flaps in the posterior mandible is often limited by anatomical factors. This paper reports on a series of 69 consecutive cases introducing a novel surgical technique to release and advance the lingual flap coronally in a safe and predictable manner.