Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by -1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and -1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, -0.02; 0.94]; p = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.

Accuracy of immediately placed implants using surgical guides from different 3-dimensional printers: An in vitro study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D)-printed surgical guides for fully guided immediate implants from different manufacturers. METHODS: Eighteen 3D printed fully guided surgical guides (split into 3 groups [n = 6] according to their manufacturer: Company, Desktop, or Lab), were used to place 72 implants (n = 24) in identical maxillary models. After placement, the mean global, angular, mesiodistal, buccopalatal, and vertical deviation at the platform and apex of the placed implants, relative to their preoperatively planned positions, was calculated. RESULTS: Significant differences in global apex deviation, angular deviation, mesiodistal apex deviation, and vertical platform and apex deviation were found between the Lab and Desktop groups (p ≤ 0.007). Significant differences in mesiodistal platform and apex deviation and buccopalatal apex deviation were also found between the Company and Desktop groups (p ≤ 0.005). Finally, significant differences in buccopalatal apex deviation, and vertical platform and apex deviation were found between the Company and Lab groups (p ≤ 0.003). Mean differences between guide groups across all parameters never exceeded 0.5 mm or 1°. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of 3D printer has a significant effect on the accuracy of fully guided immediate implants. However, the clinical relevance of these differences may be considered limited.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Collagen Matrix to Hemostatic Gelatin Sponge as Socket Seal in Alveolar Ridge Preservation.

(1) Objectives: This study aimed to compare a collagen matrix to a hemostatic gelatin sponge as a socket seal in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). (2) Methods: Systemically healthy patients planned for ARP at two sites with more than 50% of the buccal bone wall remaining after tooth extraction were eligible for inclusion. ARP involved socket grafting using collagen-enriched deproteinized bovine bone mineral. Sites were then randomly assigned to the test group (collagen matrix) or the control group (hemostatic gelatin sponge). The primary outcome was soft tissue thickness in the center of the site at 4 months, analyzed on cone-beam computed tomography. Secondary outcomes included the buccal and lingual soft tissue heights, horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and Socket Wound Healing Score (SWHS). (3) Results: In total, 18 patients (12 females, 6 males) with a mean age of 57.3 years (SD 11.1) were included. Four months after ARP, the soft tissue thickness in the center of the site amounted to 2.48 mm (SD 0.70) in the test group and 1.81 mm (SD 0.69) in the control group. The difference of 0.67 mm (95% CI: 0.20-1.14) in favor of the collagen matrix was statistically significant (p < 0.009). The buccal soft tissue height was also statistically significantly higher for the collagen matrix (0.72 mm; 95% CI: 0.06-1.38; p = 0.034). A trend favoring the collagen matrix was found for the lingual soft tissue height (p = 0.066). No significant differences between the groups in terms of horizontal bone loss, buccal soft tissue profile changes, wound dimensions, and the SWHS were found. (4) Conclusions: The absence of significant differences in hard tissue outcomes suggests that both the collagen matrix and hemostatic gelatin sponge effectively sealed the extraction socket and supported bone preservation. However, the collagen matrix better maintained soft tissue dimensions. The clinical relevance of this finding with respect to the necessity for adjunctive soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement is yet to be studied.

Immediate versus early implant placement for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) with early implant placement (EIP) for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area in terms of aesthetic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to February 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with EIP were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue change. Secondary outcomes were horizontal midfacial soft tissue change, vertical papillary change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival, buccal bone thickness, marginal bone level change, patient discomfort, chair time, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 1185 records, 6 RCTs were selected, reporting on 222 patients who received 222 single implants (IIP: 112 implants in 112 patients; EIP: 110 implants in 110 patients) in the anterior maxilla or mandible. Patients had a mean age ranging from 35.6 to 52.6 years and were followed between 8 and 24 months. Two RCTs showed some concerns, and four showed a high risk of bias. Four studies could be included in a meta-analysis on the primary outcome and three only considered cases with an intact buccal bone wall. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of vertical midfacial soft tissue change between IIP and EIP (mean difference: 0.31 mm, 95% CI [-0.23; 0.86], p = .260; I2 = 83%, p < .001). No significant differences were found for PES (standardized mean difference: 0.92, 95% CI [-0.23; 2.07], p = .120; I2 = 89%, p < .001), implant survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.93, 1.03], p = .480; I2 = 0%, p = .980), and marginal bone level change (mean difference: 0.03 mm, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.17], p = .700; I2 = 0%, p = .470). Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses of other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In low-risk patients with an intact buccal bone wall, there seems to be no difference between IIP and EIP in terms of aesthetic and clinical outcomes. The strength of this conclusion is rated as low since studies showed an unclear or high risk of bias. In addition, state-of-the-art therapy was only delivered in a minority of studies. Future RCTs should also provide data on patient-reported outcomes since these have been underreported.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-Year results.

AIM: To compare connective tissue graft (CTG) with collagen matrix (CMX) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) when applied at single implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal mucosa defect were enrolled in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. All were fully healed sites with a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, and received an immediately restored single implant using a full digital workflow. Patients were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX: Geistlich Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. Primary endpoints were increase in BSP at T1 (immediately postop), T2 (3 months), T3 (1 year) and T4 (3 years) based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported, clinical and aesthetic outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included per group (control group: 15 males, 15 females, mean age 50.1 years; test group: 14 males, 16 females, mean age 48.2 years) and 50 could be re-examined at T4. The changes in BSP over time were significantly different between the groups (p < .001). At T4, the estimated mean increase in BSP amounted to 0.83 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.08) in the control group and 0.48 mm (95% CI: 0.22-0.73) in the test group. The estimated mean difference of 0.35 mm (95% CI: 0.06-0.65) in favour of the control group was significant (p = .021). No significant differences between the groups could be observed in terms of patients' aesthetic satisfaction (p = .563), probing depth (p = .286), plaque (p = .676), bleeding on probing (p = .732), midfacial recession (p = .667), Pink Esthetic Score (p = .366) and Mucosal Scarring Index (p = .438). However, CMX resulted in significantly more marginal bone loss (-0.43 mm; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.09; p = .015) than CTG. CONCLUSIONS: CTG was more effective in increasing buccal soft tissue profile and resulted in less marginal bone loss than CMX. Therefore, CTG remains the gold standard to increase soft tissue thickness at implant sites. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04210596).

Lateral bone augmentation with a composite graft covered with a stretched and pinned collagen membrane: A retrospective case series using cone-beam computed tomography.

AIMS: (1) To assess the effectiveness of the Sausage Technique™ when applied for lateral bone augmentation by multiple experienced clinicians; (2) To identify risk indicators for a poor outcome and to assess the need for adjunctive surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had been treated with the Sausage Technique™ for lateral bone augmentation by three experienced surgeons between January 2019 and December 2021 were included in a retrospective case series. The Sausage Technique™ technique includes the use of autogenous bone chips and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (1:1 ratio), covered with a stretched and pinned collagen membrane. The increase in alveolar width between the pre-operative situation and 9 months was assessed at different levels on superimposed cone-beam CT scans. RESULTS: Twenty-five augmentations performed in 25 patients (17 males, 8 females, mean age 51 years) were available for evaluation. Mean alveolar width increased from 4.35 to 7.43 mm at 3 mm below the crest. The mean increase of 3.08 mm (95% CI 2.10-4.06; p < 0.001) was significant. The outcome of non-containing single implant sites was significantly worse than the outcome of other sites (MD 2.67 mm; p = 0.008). The need for regrafting was 4% and the need for soft tissue augmentation was 48%. Twenty percent of the patients needed soft tissue augmentation due to a lack of keratinized mucosa width, and 32% due to a lack of buccal convexity. The former was mainly needed at multiple implant sites, whereas the latter was mainly required at single implant sites. All implant survived and remained healthy until the final follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Sausage Technique™ is an effective bone augmentation technique. Non-containing single implant sites were associated with a poor outcome and adjunctive soft tissue augmentation was needed in about half of the patients.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial on alveolar ridge preservation with immediate or delayed implant placement: Need for soft-tissue augmentation.

AIM: To assess the impact of the timing of implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on the need for soft-tissue augmentation (STA) and to identify the risk factors for horizontal and vertical soft-tissue loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single failing tooth in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were treated at six centres. Following tooth extraction, they were randomly allocated to the test group (immediate implant placement, IIP) or control group (delayed implant placement, DIP). ARP was performed in both groups and implants were immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Six months after tooth extraction and ARP, a panel of five blinded clinicians assessed the need for STA on the basis of anonymized clinical pictures and a digital surface model. Lack of buccal soft-tissue convexity and/or mid-facial recession qualified for STA. Pre-operative and 6-month digital surface models were superimposed to assess horizontal and vertical soft-tissue changes. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included per group (test: 20 females, 10 males, mean age 53.1; control: 15 females, 15 males, mean age 59.8). The panel deemed STA as necessary in 24.1% and 35.7% of the cases following IIP and DIP, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.54-5.84]; p = .343). Loss of buccal soft-tissue profile was higher following DIP (estimated mean ratio = 1.66; 95% CI [1.10-2.52]; p = .018), as was mid-facial recession (mean difference [MD] = 0.47 mm; 95% CI [0.12-0.83]; p = .011). Besides DIP, regression analysis identified soft-tissue thickness (-0.57; 95% CI [-1.14 to -0.01]; p = .045) and buccal bone dehiscence (0.17; 95% CI [0.01-0.34]; p = .045) as additional risk factors for mid-facial recession. Surgeons found IIP significantly more difficult than DIP (visual analogue scale MD = -34.57; 95% CI [-48.79 to -20.36]; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-centre randomized controlled trial failed to demonstrate a significant difference in the need for STA between IIP and DIP when judged by a panel of blinded clinicians. Based on objective soft-tissue changes, patients with thin buccal soft tissues, with a buccal bone dehiscence and treated with a delayed approach appeared particularly prone to soft-tissue loss.

EAO Position Paper: Immediate Implant Placement: Managing Hard and Soft Tissue Stability from Diagnosis to Prosthetic Treatment.

In this position paper, the state of the art in immediate implant placement (IIP) at incisor-cuspid-premolar sites is described. The literature supports that the following prerequisites need to be simultaneously met for a predictable outcome: (1) there must be no acute infection; (2) there must be apical and palatal/lingual bone for implant anchorage; (3) the tooth must be inside the bone envelope; (4) the alveolar socket must have a favorable morphology (type I, IIa, IIb avoiding wide dehiscences); (5) there must be no midfacial recession; (6) the right implant must be selected; and (7) the surgeon needs to be experienced and skilled. A preoperative CBCT is required for IIP because multiple aforementioned prerequisites (2, 3, and 4) can only be assessed on the basis of 3D imaging. The final prerequisite relates to the importance of a perfect implant position, preferably leaving a horizontal gap of at least 2 mm between the implant shoulder and buccal bone wall. Guided surgery is preferred over free-hand surgery to accomplish this. Flapless surgery, socket grafting, connective tissue graft (CTG), and immediate provisionalization have been shown to contribute to hard and/or soft tissue stability. When the previously mentioned prerequisites are fulfilled, IIP may be considered over alternative treatment concepts (eg, early implant placement [EIP] and delayed implant placement [DIP]) based on time gain, minimal invasiveness, and similar outcomes in the literature. Given very strict selection criteria, clinicians should primarily screen patients for IIP before considering other treatment options with wider indications. Int J Prosthodont 2023;36:533-545.

The Effect of Terra-Cortril as Local Pain Medication on the Healing Process of a Fresh Extraction Socket: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

(1) Background: Use of Terra-Cortril may reduce pain and discomfort after tooth extraction. It is widely used among dentists, especially for third molar extraction and for treatment of dry socket. Only few case reports described unsuccessful healing with formation of myospherulosis. (2) Aim: The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the occurrence of unsuccessful healing between extraction sockets locally treated with Terra-Cortril (TC) (exposure cohort) and extraction sockets subjected to unassisted healing (non-exposure cohort). The assessment of the three-dimensional morphology of the bone was a secondary objective. (3) Material and methods: The records of patients who had one or more extractions between 1 January 2020 and 1 July 2021 followed by implant placement in one private practice were retrieved and data were extracted. At the time of implant placement, practitioners established, both clinically and radiographically, if the healing was successful or unsuccessful. Explanatory demographic as well as clinical variables were extracted from patient files, checked and supplemented by contacting patients in cases of missing data. (4) Results: 69 patients were included who had, in total, 99 extractions. The exposure cohort included 55 sites, while the non-exposure cohort included 44 sites. A total of 56 sites demonstrated successful healing, and 53 showed unsuccessful healing. The regression model identified TC as a significant predictor (p = 0.014) for unsuccessful healing with an odds ratio of 2.86. Sites treated with Terra-Cortril had a significantly greater bone defect at level -1 mm, level -3 mm, and level -5 mm from the bone crest, and significantly greater maximal vertical and horizontal bone defects. At sites where Terra-Cortril was used, significantly more surgical consequences were reported (70.91% vs. 18.18%, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: fresh extraction sockets treated with Terra-Cortril increased the likelihood of unsuccessful healing with an odds ratio of 2.86. The greater defect size leads to significantly more limitations when planning implants at sites previously treated with TC.

A prospective case series on the efficacy of a cross-linked collagen matrix to increase buccal soft tissue thickness at large edentulous gaps: One-year results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess profilometric changes following soft tissue augmentation with a cross-linked porcine-derived collagen matrix (CMX) at large edentulous gaps of at least two units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systemically healthy, nonsmoking patients with a large edentulous gap of at least two units demonstrating a horizontal soft tissue defect, were enrolled in a prospective case series. Soft tissue augmentation was performed in a one-stage approach with a 6 mm thick CMX at the time of implant placement. The primary outcome was the change in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at a mesial, central, and distal area of interest (AOI) up to 1 year when compared to the preoperative situation based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary outcomes included the horizontal dimension of the soft tissue defect, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL). RESULTS: Fifteen patients (eight females; mean age 58.73 years) were enrolled and 13 could be re-assessed at 1-year follow-up. The mean linear increase in BSP at 1 year was 0.66 mm (98.3% CI: 0.37-0.94), 0.80 mm (98.3% CI: 0.39-1.22), and 0.69 mm (98.3% CI: 0.32-1.06) at the mesial, central, and distal AOI, respectively. Substantial shrinkage of about 75% was observed in all areas between augmentation and 1-year follow-up. Even though 11 of 13 sites were fully augmented immediately postoperative, a soft tissue defect recurred in all sites at 1-year follow-up with a mean deficit of 2.30 mm. Altogether, 25% of the original soft tissue defect was eliminated by soft tissue augmentation. CMX was safe since no postoperative complications occurred and MBL was limited (0.70 mm). CONCLUSION: CMX is efficacious for horizontal soft tissue augmentation at large edentulous gaps. However, considerable graft resorption may be expected, and the clinical relevance of the augmentation may be questionable since all patients demonstrated a recurring and considerable soft tissue defect 1 year after surgery.

A Multi-Centre Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Connective Tissue Graft with Collagen Matrix to Increase Buccal Soft Tissue Thickness: A Cone-Beam CT Analysis.

(1) Aim: a cross-linked porcine-derived collagen matrix (CMX) has been developed for soft tissue augmentation. Although this grafting material does not require a second surgical site, recent findings have indicated deeper pockets, more marginal bone loss and more midfacial recession in the short term when compared to connective tissue graft (CTG). Hence, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of CMX based on buccal bone loss over a one-year period. (2) Methods: Patients who were missing a single tooth in the anterior maxilla were included, in whom the failing tooth had been removed at least 3 months prior and who presented a horizontal mucosa defect. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm as assessed on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone. All patients received a single implant and an immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. All surgeries were performed by means of full thickness mucoperiosteal flap elevation, placing CTG and CMX in contact with the buccal bone wall. Safety was assessed by evaluating the impact of CTG and CMX on buccal bone loss over a one-year period using superimposed CBCT scans. (3) Results: thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48) and 51 (control: 25; test: 26) could be analyzed for buccal bone loss. At 1 mm apical to the implant-abutment interface (IAI), most horizontal resorption was found pointing to 0.44 mm in the control group and 0.59 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.14 mm (95% CI: -0.17-0.46) was not statistically significant (p = 0.366). At 3 mm and 5 mm apical to the IAI, the difference between the groups was 0.18 mm (95% CI: -0.05-0.40; p = 0.128) and 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.24-0.28; p = 0.899), respectively. Vertical buccal bone loss amounted to 1.12 mm in the control group and 1.14 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.53-0.49) was not statistically significant (p = 0.926). (4) Conclusions: In the short term, soft tissue augmentation with CTG or CMX results in limited buccal bone loss. CMX is a safe alternative to CTG. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of soft tissue augmentation on buccal bone.

Immediate implant placement with flap or flapless surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the impact of mucoperiosteal flap elevation for single immediate implant placement (IIP) on buccal hard and soft tissue changes, and on clinical, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP without flap elevation to IIP with flap elevation were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was horizontal buccal bone change. Secondary outcomes were implant survival, vertical buccal bone change, pain, and clinical and aesthetic parameters. RESULTS: Out of 1029 records, 5 RCTs were selected reporting on 140 patients who received 140 single immediate implants (flapless: 68; flap: 72). Patients had a mean age ranging from 30 to 67 years and were followed between 6 and 12 months. Four RCTs pertained to (nearly) intact alveoli. Risk of bias assessment yielded low risk for two RCTs and high risk for three RCTs. Meta-analysis demonstrated a mean difference of 0.48 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.13, 0.84], p = .007) in horizontal buccal bone change between surgical approaches, favouring flapless surgery. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in implant survival between the groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.93, 1.07], p = .920). Given the scarcity of data, meta-analyses could not be performed on other secondary outcomes. Available studies were consistent in the direction of the effect favouring flapless surgery for vertical buccal bone change as well as for pain. Clinical and aesthetic parameters were underreported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on CBCT data, flapless surgery resulted in more buccal bone preservation at immediate implants. However, the clinical relevance of this finding is unclear, since clinical and aesthetic outcomes were underreported.

Adjunctive locally and systemically delivered antimicrobials during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: "In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with adjunctive systemic or local antimicrobials, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in terms of pocket probing depth reduction, as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 6 months of follow-up?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted. Reduction in mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was the primary outcome. Secondary clinical outcomes were changes in suppuration (%), changes in bleeding on probing (BOP) (%), marginal bone level changes (mm), disease resolution (%), and implant/prosthesis loss (%). Patient-reported outcome measures, possible adverse effects, and oral-health-related quality of life were also extracted if such data were available. RESULTS: Four RCTs assessing the use of locally (two RCTs) and systemically (two RCTs) administered antimicrobial adjuncts to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with 6-36-month follow-up, were included. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of interventions between the studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. A reduction in the mean PPD was observed following all the involved surgical treatments, irrespective of the addition of antimicrobials. Except for the effect of systemic antimicrobials on marginal bone level changes and local antimicrobials on BOP, the effect of systemic and local antimicrobials was equivocal for all secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited available evidence, the adjunctive use of the currently tested systemic or local antimicrobials during surgical therapy, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in patients with peri-implantitis does not seem to improve the clinical efficacy. With regard the use of systemic antimicrobials, only 50% of the cases showed disease resolution after 1 year. There is a lack of studies that consider the sole use of local antimicrobials. Therefore, their true effect remains unclear.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 1-year results.

AIM: To compare connective tissue graft (CTG) with collagen matrix (CMX) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at 1 year when applied at single implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal mucosa defect were enrolled in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant and an immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. The primary outcome was the increase in BSP at 1 year when compared with the pre-operative situation based on superimposed digital surface models. The changes in BSP over time were registered at a buccal area of interest reaching from 0.5 mm below the soft tissue margin to 4 mm more apical. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported, clinical and aesthetic outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50.1; test: 53% females, mean age 48.2). The increase in BSP at 1 year was 0.98 mm (98.3% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.20) for CTG and 0.57 mm (98.3% CI: 0.34 to 0.79) for CMX. The mean difference of 0.41 mm (98.3% CI: 0.12 to 0.69) in favour of CTG was significant (p < .001). Based on an arbitrarily chosen threshold for success of 0.75 mm increase in BSP, 89.7% of the patients in the control group and 10% of the patients in the test group were successfully treated (odds ratio = 77.90; 95% CI: 13.52 to 448.80; p < .001). Sites treated with CMX demonstrated 0.89 mm (98.3% CI: 0.49 to 1.30) more shrinkage between postop and 1 year than sites treated with CTG. In addition, CMX resulted in significantly more marginal bone loss (0.39 mm; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.74; p = .026) than CTG. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of patients' aesthetic satisfaction (p = .938), probing depth (p = .917), plaque (p = .354), bleeding on probing (p = .783), midfacial recession (p = .915), Pink Esthetic Score (p = .121) and Mucosal Scarring Index (p = .965). CONCLUSIONS: CTG remains the gold standard to increase soft tissue thickness at implant sites. Clinicians need to outweigh the benefits of CMX against considerable resorption of the graft. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04210596).

Buccal soft tissue dehiscence defects at dental implants-associated factors and frequency of occurrence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To identify the factors associated with buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences (BSTDs) and their frequency of occurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case series assessing the frequency of occurrence of BSTD were included. BSTD was defined as an apical migration of the peri-implant soft tissues of ≥1 mm from the baseline examination (final restoration) or in comparison with the adjacent or contralateral natural tooth. Frequency distributions of BSTD related to the presence or absence of any surgical, prosthetic, or anatomic factor that may have contributed to the development of BSTD were recorded. Random-effects meta-analyses using odds ratios (OR) were performed to investigate the association of certain factors with the development of BSTD. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were finally included belonging to 22 clinical investigations. Patients at higher risk of developing BSTD were associated with thin biotype (OR = 2.85 [1.40, 5.8], n = 5, p = .003) and with buccally placed implants (OR = 14.37 [4.58, 45.14], n = 3, p ≤ .001). Patients without connective tissue grafting (CTG) had greater odds of developing BSTD (OR = 9.00 [3.11, 26.02], n = 5, p ≤ .001), while buccal bone plate thickness of <1 mm and immediately placed implants were not associated with greater BSTD (OR = 1.29 [0.35, 4.77], n = 2, p = .704 and OR = 1.56 [0.46, 5.26], n = 4, p = .477, respectively). The frequency of occurrence of BSTD varied across the included studies with a range from 0% to 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Thin tissue biotype and buccally placed implants were associated with BSTD, whereas CTG seemed to have a protective effect. Thin buccal plates and immediately placed implants did not demonstrate a higher risk of BSTD.

Immediate implant placement with or without immediate provisionalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of immediate provisionalization (IP) on soft tissue changes, hard tissue changes, and clinical parameters following single immediate implant placement (IIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with IP (test) and IIP without IP (control) were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue changes. Secondary outcomes included horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes, implant survival, mesial and distal papillary changes, Pink Esthetic Score (PES) at final follow-up, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth at final follow-up, and bleeding on probing at final follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 8213 records, 7 RCTs reporting on 323 patients who received 323 single immediate implants (IIP + IP: 161 implants in 161 patients; IIP: 162 implants in 162 patients) were selected with a mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 60 months. Risk of bias assessment yielded some concerns for five RCTs and high risk for two RCTs. Meta-analysis on the cases with intact alveoli demonstrated 0.87 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.57; 1.17], p < .001) less apical migration of the midfacial soft tissue level for IIP + IP when compared to IIP alone. Implant survival, papillary changes, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were not significantly affected by IP. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes and PES. CONCLUSIONS: IP may contribute to midfacial soft tissue stability at immediate implants. However, high-quality RCTs are needed since the strength of this conclusion is currently rated as low according to GRADE guidelines.

Immediate implant placement with or without socket grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of grafting the gap (SG) between the implant surface and alveolar socket on hard and soft tissue changes following single immediate implant placement (IIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to August 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with and without SG were included for a qualitative analysis. Meta-analyses were performed when possible. RESULTS: Out of 3627 records, 15 RCTs were selected and reported on 577 patients who received 604 single immediate implants (IIP + SG: 298 implants in 292 patients; IIP: 306 implants in 285 patients) with a mean follow-up ranging from 4 to 36 months. Two RCTs showed low risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed 0.59 mm (95% CI [0.41; 0.78], p < 0.001) or 54% less horizontal buccal bone resorption following IIP + SG when compared to IIP alone. In addition, 0.58 mm (95% CI [0.28; 0.88], p < 0.001) less apical migration of the midfacial soft tissue level was found when immediate implants were installed with SG. A trend towards less distal papillary recession was found (MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI [-0.08; 1.28], p = 0.080) when SG was performed, while mesial papillae appeared not significantly affected by SG. Vertical buccal bone changes were also not significantly affected by SG. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes, pink esthetic score, marginal bone level changes, probing depth and bleeding on probing. Based on GRADE guidelines, a moderate recommendation for SG following IIP can be made. CONCLUSION: SG may contribute to horizontal bone preservation and soft tissue stability at the midfacial aspect of immediate implants. Therefore, SG should be considered as an adjunct to IIP in clinical practice.

A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re-establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites: Three-year results.

OBJECTIVES: To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) to connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at three-year follow-up when applied at the buccal aspect of single implant sites demonstrating a minor horizontal alveolar defect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant at least 3 months after tooth removal and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcome was linear increase in BSP, meaning increase at the buccal aspect of the implant, based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary outcomes were buccal bone and buccal soft tissue thickness, aesthetic and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included per group at baseline. After three years, three patients in the GBR group and four in the CTG group were not willing to return for re-assessment. Hence, the final sample included 9 females/9 males (mean age 52) in the GBR group and 8 females / 9 males in the CTG group (mean age 49). The changes in BSP over time were not significantly different between GBR and CTG (p = 0.629). At three years, sites treated with GBR demonstrated 1.06 mm (95% CI: 0.83; 1.28) increase in BSP, whereas sites treated with CTG showed 0.99 mm (95% CI: 0.65; 1.35) increase in BSP (p = 0.699) compared to baseline. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the parameters except for Mucosal Scarring Index, which was 1.63 (95% CI: 0.73; 2.53) lower for CTG (p = 0.002) at study termination. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in linear increase in BSP between GBR and CTG after three years. Hence, clinical decision-making should be based on other factors.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating hyaluronic acid gel as wound healing agent in alveolar ridge preservation.

AIM: To compare the results of administration of hyaluronic acid (HA) gel to no gel administration following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of changes in wound dimensions over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systemically healthy patients scheduled for ARP at one or two sites in the incisor, cuspid, or premolar area with at least one neighbouring tooth and >50% buccal bone present following extraction were included. ARP consisted of socket grafting with collagen-enriched, deproteinized bovine bone mineral and socket sealing by means of a collagen matrix. Following surgical therapy, sites were randomly allocated to the control group (no gel application) or the test group (0.8% HA gel applied onto the collagen matrix three times per day for 7 days). Bucco-lingual and mesio-distal wound dimensions were registered at T0 (immediately post operation), T1 (1 week), and T2 (3 weeks). Patient-reported outcomes, clinical outcomes, and hard and soft tissue changes were recorded up to 4 months (T3). RESULTS: In the control group, 20 patients (7 males, 13 females; mean age 53.30) with 23 sites, and in the test group 18 patients (9 males, 9 females; mean age 52.56) with 23 sites, were included. There were no significant differences between the groups in the changes in wound dimensions from T0 to T2 (bucco-lingual aspect: p = .340; mesio-distal aspect: p = .883). Three sites (13%) in the control group and six (26%) in the test group demonstrated complete wound resolution at T2 (p = .259). HA failed to show any effect on the number of analgesics taken (p = .175), patient-reported outcomes (p ≥ .263), alveolitis (p = .136), socket healing (p ≥ .424), soft tissue changes (p ≥ .064), or mucosal scarring (p = .548). However, significantly more horizontal bone loss at the coronal aspect was found in the test group (p ≤ .025). CONCLUSION: HA failed to promote wound resolution on a collagen matrix. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04467736).

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-month results.

AIM: To compare connective tissue graft (CTG) with collagen matrix (CMX) in terms of changes over time in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) when applied at single implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal mucosa defect were enrolled in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm and received a single implant and immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX: Geistlich Fibro-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. Primary outcome was increase in BSP at T1 (immediately after operation) and T2 (3 months) based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary parameters included patient-reported clinical and aesthetic outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48). Even though surgeons applied thicker grafts when using CMX, sites treated with CMX demonstrated 0.78 mm (95% CI 0.41-1.14) more shrinkage between T1 and T2 than sites treated with CTG. The final increase in BSP was 1.15 mm (95% CI 0.88-1.43) for CTG and 0.85 mm (95% CI 0.58-1.13) for CMX. The mean difference of 0.30 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.61) at T2 in favour of CTG was of borderline significance (p = .054). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of post-operative bleeding (p = .344), pain (p = .331), number of analgesics taken (p = .504), oedema (p = .227), and pink aesthetic score (p = .655). VAS for post-operative haematoma was 6.56 (95% CI 0.54-12.59) lower for CMX, and surgery time could be reduced by 9.03 min (95% CI 7.04-11.03) when applying CMX. However, CMX resulted in significantly more marginal bone loss (0.38 mm; 95% CI 0.15-0.60), deeper pockets (0.30 mm; 95% CI 0.06-0.54), and more mid-facial recession (0.75 mm; 95% CI 0.39-1.12) than CTG. CONCLUSIONS: CTG remains the gold standard for increasing soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of implants.