Effectiveness, Morbidity, and Costs of Transcrestal and Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation at Sites with Different Residual Bone Heights: A Re-Analysis of Data from a Parallel-Arm Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To comparatively evaluate transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE) and lateral sinus floor elevation (lSFE) at sites with different residual bone heights (RBHs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A re-analysis of data from a parallel-arm, randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE was performed. Within each RBH interval (< 4 mm or ≥ 4 mm), tSFE and lSFE groups were compared for chair time, surgery-related costs, morbidity, and radiographic parameters (including the proportion of the implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area [totCON%]). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of 29 and 28 patients in the tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively. Irrespective of RBH, both tSFE and lSFE lead to a median totCON% of 100%. At sites with RBH < 4 mm, pain severity was significantly higher at days 0 and 1 in the tSFE group, with no intergroup difference in the dose of analgesics. LSFE was associated with a significantly higher frequency of bruising and greater cost. At sites with RBH ≥ 4 mm, a significantly lower frequency of postoperative signs/symptoms, less chair time, and lower costs were observed in the tSFE group. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of tSFE or lSFE within the investigated RBH intervals seems to be supported by differences in chair time, costs, and morbidity between the two techniques. At sites with RBH < 4 mm, clinicians preferring tSFE should encourage the administration of analgesics according to a predefined plan in the early postoperative phase. At sites with RBH ≥ 4 mm, tSFE should be preferred to lSFE due to reduced chair time, costs, and morbidity.

Prognostic value of a composite outcome measure for periodontal stability following periodontal regenerative treatment: A retrospective analysis at 4 years.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a composite outcome measure (COM) was proposed to describe the short-term results of periodontal regenerative treatment. The present retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prognostic value of COM on clinical attachment level (CAL) change over a 4-year period of supportive periodontal care (SPC). METHODS: Seventy-four intraosseous defects in 59 patients were evaluated at 6 months and 4 years following regenerative treatment. Based on 6-month CAL change and probing depth (PD), defects were classified as: COM1 (CAL gain ≥3 mm, PD ≤4 mm); COM2 (CAL gain <3 mm, PD ≤4 mm); COM3 (CAL gain ≥3 mm, PD >4 mm); or COM4 (CAL gain <3 mm, PD >4 mm). COM groups were compared for "stability" (i.e., CAL gain, no change in CAL or CAL loss <1 mm) at 4 years. Also, groups were compared for mean change in PD and CAL, need for surgical retreatment, and tooth survival. RESULTS: At 4 years, the proportion of stable defects in COM1, COM2, COM3, and COM4 group was 69.2%, 75%, 50%, and 28.6%, respectively, with a substantially higher probability for a defect to show stability for COM1, COM2, and COM3 compared with COM4 (odds ratio 4.6, 9.1, and 2.4, respectively). Although higher prevalence of surgical reinterventions and lower tooth survival were observed in COM4, no significant differences were detected among COM groups. CONCLUSIONS: COM may be of value in predicting CAL change at sites undergoing SPC following periodontal regenerative surgery. Studies on larger cohorts, however, are needed to substantiate the present findings.

Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: The present study was performed to comparatively evaluate the peri-implant bone stability and conditions of marginal tissues at 3 years following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients included in a parallel-arm randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE were recalled at 3 years post-surgery. Twenty-one and 24 patients in tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively, participated in the follow-up visit. Peri-implant bone support was evaluated as the proportion of the entire implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area (totCON%) on 3-year periapical radiographs. The conditions of the marginal peri-implant tissues at 3-year visit were classified as peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis. RESULTS: At 3 years, both groups showed an implant survival rate of 100%. Median totCON% was stable at 3 years, being 100% in both groups (p = 0.124). Peri-implant health and mucositis were diagnosed in 10 (47.6%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, in the tSFE group, and in 8 (33.3%) and 16 (66.7%) subjects, respectively, in the lSFE group (p = 0.502). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years following surgery, implants placed concomitantly with tSFE and lSFE fully maintain peri-implant bone support. Peri-implant mucositis was the most prevalent condition, with a similar prevalence between groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on 3-year data on peri-implant bone support and prevalence of peri-implant diseases, the study suggests that tSFE and lSFE represent two equally valid options for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT02415946.

Implant-supported rehabilitation following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: analysis of costs and quality of life from a bicenter, parallel-arm randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate costs and specific aspects of oral-health related quality of life (OhRQoL) related to the period between the surgery phase of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively) and 6 months after delivery of implant-supported prosthesis. METHODS: A bicenter, parallel-arm, randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE when applied concomitantly with implant placement was conducted. At 6 months after prosthesis delivery, data on cost-associated items related to the post-surgery period and selected aspects of OhRQoL were collected. RESULTS: Analyses of costs and quality of life was conducted on 56 patients (tSFE: 28; lSFE: 28) and 54 patients (tSFE: 26; lSFE: 28), respectively. Significantly lower dose of anesthetic (2 vs. 3 vials), amount of xenograft (420 mg vs. 1975 mg), and duration of surgery (54' vs. 86') were observed for tSFE compared to lSFE. No significant differences in the number of additional surgical sessions, postoperative exams, specialist consultations and drug consumption were found between groups. In a limited fraction of patients in both groups, improvements were observed for pain (tSFE: 3.8%; lSFE: 7.4%), comfort in eating any food (tSFE: 11.5%; lSFE: 3.6%), self-consciousness (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 14.3%), and satisfaction about life (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The surgery phase of maxillary sinus floor elevation is characterized by more favorable cost-associated items for tSFE compared to lSFE. Differently, tSFE and lSFE do not differ for either costs related to the post-surgery phases or impact of the implant-supported rehabilitation on specific aspects of OhRQoL.

Single flap approach with or without enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of severe supraosseous defects: a retrospective study.

AIM: To comparatively evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the single flap approach (SFA) with and without enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of supraosseous defects (SDs) associated with deep pockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, each contributing one SD associated with a deep (≥ 6 mm) pocket and treated with buccal SFA either alone (SFA group; n = 10) or in combination with EMD (SFA+EMD group; n =10), were retrospectively selected. Clinical parameters (probing depth, PD; clinical attachment level, CAL; gingival recession, REC) had been assessed at pre-surgery and 12 months post-surgery. RESULTS: Complete wound closure was observed in 70% and 80% of defects treated with SFA and SFA+EMD, respectively. Treatments resulted in a significant PD reduction of 3.1±1.0 mm (p=0.005). In SFA+EMD group, 100% of closed pockets was obtained, while 90% of closed pockets was observed in SFA group. Both treatments resulted in a significant CAL gain of 2.1±0.9 mm and 1.9±1.7 mm in SFA and SFA+EMD group, respectively (p= 0.465). In both groups, REC significantly increased 1.0±1.1 mm in SFA group and 1.1±1.1 mm in SFA+EMD group (p= 0.722). CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the findings of present study suggest that SFA may represent a valuable option for the surgical treatment of SDs associated with deep pockets. EMD did not result in a significant clinical benefit to the procedure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SFA may represent a valuable option in obtaining pocket closure when treating SDs associated with deep residual pockets.

Tooth loss in complying and non-complying periodontitis patients with different periodontal risk levels during supportive periodontal care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate yearly tooth loss rate (TLR) in periodontitis patients with different periodontal risk levels who had complied or not complied with supportive periodontal care (SPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 168 periodontitis patients enrolled in a SPC program based on a 3-month suggested recall interval for at least 3.5 years were analyzed. For patients with a mean recall interval within 2-4 months ("compliers") or > 4 months ("non-compliers") with different PerioRisk levels (Trombelli et al. 2009), TLR (irrespective of the cause for tooth loss) was calculated. TLR values were considered in relation to meaningful TLR benchmarks from the literature for periodontitis patients either under SPC (0.15 teeth/year; positive benchmark) or irregularly complying with SPC (0.36 teeth/year; negative benchmark). RESULTS: In both compliers and non-compliers, TLR was significantly below or similar to the positive benchmark in PerioRisk level 3 (0.08 and 0.03 teeth/year, respectively) and PerioRisk level 4 (0.12 and 0.18 teeth/year, respectively). Although marked and clinically relevant in non-compliers, the difference between TLR of compliers (0.32 teeth/year) and non-compliers (0.52 teeth/year) with PerioRisk level 5 and the negative benchmark was not significant. CONCLUSION: A SPC protocol based on a 3- to 6-month recall interval may effectively limit long-term tooth loss in periodontitis patients with PerioRisk levels 3 and 4. A fully complied 3-month SPC protocol seems ineffective when applied to PerioRisk level 5 patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PerioRisk seems to represent a valid tool to inform the SPC recall interval as well as the intensity of active treatment prior to SPC enrollment.

Oral Care and Quality Evaluation: A Multicentric Study on Periodontal Treatment.

PURPOSE: No information is available on the perception of the quality of care in patients treated for periodontitis. The purpose of this article was to assess how periodontitis-affected patients perceive the quality of periodontal treatment (PT) and to measure the factors which may influence it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 306 subjects who completed PT were invited to participate. Questionnaires and visual analogic scales (VAS) evaluating perception of quality of care, symptoms, and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were handed out. Oral and periodontal indicators were collected before and after treatment. The impact of different factors on perception of quality was assessed with a regression model. RESULTS: Quality evaluation was high yet unrelated for both patients and clinicians (p = 0.983). Quality was negatively influenced by the number of residual oral infections (p < 0.001), patient's age (p = 0.07) and presence of residual pain at completion of PT (p = 0.02). Professionalism, kindness of the staff and communication skills were the characteristics mostly appreciated. The OHRQoL was influenced by the number of residual teeth (p < 0.001), increasing age of patients (p = 0.08), number of residual infections (p < 0.01) and pain (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' quality perception appeared to be influenced by clinical and emotional aspects. Oral care providers should be aware of the impact of non-clinical factors in patients' appreciation of quality of treatment.

The impact of graft remodeling on peri-implant bone support at implants placed concomitantly with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A multicenter, retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact on peri-implant bone support (as assessed on periapical radiographs) of the remodeling dynamics of varying graft biomaterials used for transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE). METHODS: The study is a multicenter, retrospective series of cases undergone tSFE (performed according to the Smart Lift technique) and concomitant implant placement. At operator's discretion, tSFE was performed with bone core (BC) alone or supplemented by deproteinized bovine or porcine bone mineral (DBBM and DPBM, respectively), synthetic hydroxyapatite in a collagen matrix (S-HA), or ß-tricalcium phosphate (ß-TCP). Immediately after surgery, at 6-12 months post-surgery, and at later (≥24 months) follow-up intervals, the percentage proportion of the implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area was calculated for the entire implant surface (totCON%). Also, the height of the graft apical to the implant apex (aGH) was assessed. RESULTS: At 6-12 months following tSFE, median totCON% was 100%, with a median aGH of 1.4 mm. A tendency of aGH to decrease in height was observed at later follow-up intervals for sites treated with all grafting procedures. In all treatment groups, the majority of the implant surface was still surrounded by the radiopaque area at the longest follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although the height of the peri-implant radiopaque area apical to the implant apex tends to reduce overtime at sites which have received tSFE, the peri-implant bone support seems to be maintained long term irrespective of the graft material used.

Radiographic outcomes of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: One-year results of a bi-center, parallel-arm randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To comparatively evaluate the radiographic outcomes of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively) when applied concomitantly with implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least 1 edentulous site with residual bone height (RBH) of 3-6 mm were enrolled in a bi-center, parallel-arm, randomized trial. Both tSFE and lSFE were associated with a bovine-derived xenograft, and implants were inserted concomitantly. In lSFE group, the antrostomy was covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Marginal bone loss and the maturation of the grafted area were evaluated on periapical radiographs at 6 and 12 months. Twelve-month CT/CBCT was used to assess the effect of grafting procedures circumferentially around the implant. A per-protocol analysis was performed. RESULTS: The per-protocol study population consisted of 26 patients in the tSFE group and 28 patients in the lSFE group. At 12 months, the median proportion of the implant surface in contact with the peri-implant radiopaque area was 100% in both groups, with no significant inter-group difference. Suboptimal bone-to-implant contact was observed in 13% and 3.6% of tSFE and lSFE cases, respectively. In both groups, marginal bone loss was minimal (≤1 mm) and infrequent, and the radiographic aspect was suggestive of an advanced stage of maturation. CONCLUSIONS: At sites with RBH of 3-6 mm where implants are placed concomitantly with sinus floor elevation, tSFE and lSFE are both highly predictable in obtaining an implant surface completely embedded in a radiopaque area at 12 months post-surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02415946).

Morbidity following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: A randomized trial.

AIM: To comparatively evaluate the morbidity following maxillary sinus floor elevation according to either transcrestal (tSFE) or lateral (lSFE) approach with concomitant implant placement. MATERIALS & METHODS: Patients with ≥1 edentulous maxillary posterior site with residual bone height (RBH) of 3-6 mm were enrolled. tSFE was performed in association with a xenograft and a collagen matrix. For lSFE, the sinus was grafted with the xenograft, and the antrostomy was covered with a membrane. Implants were inserted concomitantly. The postoperative course was assessed through questionnaires. Pain level (VASpain ) was recorded using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Twenty-nine and 28 patients were included in tSFE and lSFE group, respectively. On the day of surgery, VASpain was significantly higher for tSFE compared to lSFE, and similar from day 1 to 14. tSFE was characterized by significantly lower incidence of swelling, bruising and nasal discharge/bleeding. Significantly less severe limitation in swallowing, continuing daily activities, eating, speaking, opening the mouth and going to school/work was found for tSFE only at specific postsurgery intervals. CONCLUSIONS: lSFE was associated with lower pain on the day of surgery, and tSFE revealed lower postoperative morbidity as well as more tolerable postoperative course.

Regenerative Periodontal Treatment with the Single Flap Approach in Smokers and Nonsmokers.

The present study was performed to evaluate the impact of smoking status on 6-month clinical outcomes of a regenerative procedure based on enamel matrix derivative and deproteinized bovine bone mineral in the treatment of intraosseous defects accessed with buccal single flap approach. A total of 22 defects were selected in smoking (n = 11) and nonsmoking (n = 11) patients. Regenerative treatment resulted in similar clinical attachment level (CAL) gain in both smokers and nonsmokers. A trend toward lower 6-month CAL gain and probing depth reduction was observed in patients smoking 11 to 20 cigarettes per day compared to those smoking 1 to 10 cigarettes per day.

Simplified procedures to treat periodontal intraosseous defects in esthetic areas.

Successful treatment of deep intraosseous defects in esthetic areas implies clinical improvement of the lesion consistent with long-term tooth survival as well as the preservation (or improvement) of esthetics. It is hoped that such treatment end points may be reached through procedures (which we have termed as 'simplified') that, on the one hand can be easily and successfully applied by the majority of clinicians, and, on the other hand, are well tolerated by patients in terms of postsurgical pain and discomfort, adverse events and cost. In this review, we describe the technical aspects of the simplified procedures currently available (i.e. nonsurgical therapy and the single flap approach and its variants). Also, we analyze the effect of such procedures on clinical parameters and patient-centered outcomes. While nonsurgical therapy seems to be appropriate per se in lesions with a probing depth of < 7 mm and a limited intraosseous component, severe intraosseous defects can be successfully treated using simplified surgical procedures. Overall, data support the effectiveness of simplified surgical procedures and indicate that they result in minimal esthetic impairment (i.e. post-treatment recession) and a more tolerable postoperative course when compared with conventional surgical (double flap) approaches. In particular, the single flap approach was shown to be at least as effective as traditional papilla-preservation techniques when evaluated either as a stand-alone protocol or in combination with regenerative devices. Bioactive agents have shown the most appropriate regenerative technology when used in association with simplified surgical procedures.

Effect of a Connective Tissue Graft in Combination With a Single Flap Approach in the Regenerative Treatment of Intraosseous Defects.

BACKGROUND: In the attempt to limit the post-surgery increase in buccal gingival recession (bREC), effect of a connective tissue graft (CTG) when combined with a buccal single flap approach (SFA) in the regenerative treatment of intraosseous defects is evaluated. METHODS: Data related to 30 patients with an intraosseous defect treated with a buccal SFA with (SFA+CTG group; n = 15) or without (SFA group; n = 15) placement of a CTG and regenerative treatment were retrospectively derived at three clinical centers. bREC and probing parameters were assessed at presurgery and 6 months post-surgery. RESULTS: In addition to a significant attachment gain and probing depth reduction, adjunctive use of a CTG to a buccal SFA in the regenerative treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects associated with a buccal bone dehiscence resulted in a limited post-surgery bREC, a lower prevalence of defects with a clinically detectable apical displacement of the gingival margin, and an increase in gingival width and thickness. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive use of a CTG in the regenerative treatment of intraosseous defects associated with buccal bone dehiscence accessed by buccal SFA may support the stability of the gingival profile.

Patient-reported outcomes of implant placement performed concomitantly with transcrestal sinus floor elevation or entirely in native bone.

AIM: Based on the hypothesis that maxillary sinus floor elevation with a transcrestal approach (tSFE) does not increase the morbidity of implant surgery, the study evaluated the patient-reported outcomes as well as the type and incidence of complications when implants are placed either concomitantly with tSFE (performed according to Trombelli et al. 2008, 2010a,b) or entirely in native bone. METHODS: Data from the record charts of patients undergone implant placement for single-tooth rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla were retrospectively obtained from four clinical centers. Cases for tSFE group were included if they showed an extent of sinus lift ≥4 mm concomitantly to implant placement. Cases for N group were included when implant placement was performed entirely in native bone. Patient-reported outcomes had been assessed using 100-mm visual analog scales (postoperative pain, VASpain ) and visual rating scales (level of discomfort, VRSdiscomfort ; willingness to undergo the same surgery, VRSwillingness ). The dose of analgesics had been self-recorded. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 14 patients and 17 patients (contributing with one implant site each) treated with tSFE and N, respectively, was obtained for this study. Membrane perforation occurred in 1 tSFE case, without compromising the completion of the procedure. VASpain remained low (<12) in both groups. A tendency of VASpain to decrease with time was observed in both groups. The area under the curve for VASpain (AUCpain ), indicating the level of pain experience through the first week following surgery, was 18.0 (IR: 8.5-85.0) and 11.5 (IR: 4.5-18.5) in tSFE and N groups, respectively, with no significant inter-group differences (P = 0.084). The dose of analgesics was similarly low between groups. No significant inter-group difference in VRSdiscomfort and VRSwillingness was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement performed either concomitantly with tSFE (according to Trombelli et al. 2008, 2010a,b) or entirely in native bone is associated with limited incidence of complications, low postoperative pain and medication and are both well tolerated.

Effect of a Connective Tissue Graft in Combination With a Single Flap Approach in the Regenerative Treatment of Intraosseous Defects [Formula: see text].

BACKGROUND: In the attempt to limit the post-surgery increase in buccal gingival recession (bREC), effect of a connective tissue graft (CTG) when combined with a buccal single flap approach (SFA) in the regenerative treatment of intraosseous defects is evaluated. METHODS: Data related to 30 patients with an intraosseous defect treated with a buccal SFA with (SFA+CTG group; n = 15) or without (SFA group; n = 15) placement of a CTG and regenerative treatment were retrospectively derived at three clinical centers. bREC and probing parameters were assessed at presurgery and 6 months post-surgery. RESULTS: In addition to a significant attachment gain and probing depth reduction, adjunctive use of a CTG to a buccal SFA in the regenerative treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects associated with a buccal bone dehiscence resulted in a limited post-surgery bREC, a lower prevalence of defects with a clinically detectable apical displacement of the gingival margin, and an increase in gingival width and thickness. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive use of a CTG in the regenerative treatment of intraosseous defects associated with buccal bone dehiscence accessed by buccal SFA may support the stability of the gingival profile.

Prognostic value of a simplified method for periodontal risk assessment during supportive periodontal therapy.

AIM: To evaluate the association between risk scores generated with a simplified method for periodontal risk assessment (Perio Risk), and tooth loss as well as bone loss during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). MATERIALS & METHODS: Data related to 109 patients (42 males; mean age: 42.2 ± 10.2 years, range 22-62) enrolled in a SPT programme for a mean period of 5.6 years were retrospectively obtained at two specialist periodontal clinics. Patients were stratified according to Perio Risk score (on a scale from 1 - low risk to 5 - high risk) as calculated at the end of active periodontal therapy. Risk groups were compared for tooth loss as well as the changes in radiographic bone levels occurred during SPT. RESULTS: The mean number of teeth lost per patient during SPT varied from 0 to 1.8 ± 2.5 for patients with a risk score of 1 and 5 respectively (p = 0.041). Mean radiographic bone loss during SPT was ≤0.5 mm in all risk groups, without significant inter-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal risk assessment according to Perio Risk may help to identify patients at risk for tooth loss during SPT.

Orbital and Periorbital Emphysema Following Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Case Report and Literature Review.

During the past 150 years, subcutaneous emphysema has been described as a rare complication in dentistry, the etiology of which might be maneuvers performed by the patient (eg, sneezing while the mouth is closed, blowing the nose) or the dental professional through the use of specific dental instruments (eg, dental drill, air syringe, etc). Irrespective of etiology, air is forced through the soft tissues, thus producing rapid swelling of the area. According to the most recent literature reviews, the iatrogenic etiology is the most frequent. This report describes the first case of emphysema related to the orbital and periorbital region after a maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure.

Learning Curve of a Minimally Invasive Technique for Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation: A Split-Group Analysis in a Prospective Case Series With Multiple Clinicians.

AIMS: To assess the learning curve of a minimally invasive procedure for maxillary sinus floor elevation with a transcrestal approach (tSFE) and evaluate the influence of clinician's experience in implant surgery on its outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were treated by clinicians with different levels of experience in implant surgery and inexperienced with respect to the investigated tSFE technique. The initial (n = 13) and final (n = 13) groups treated by the expert clinician were compared for tSFE outcomes. Additionally, the high, moderate, and low groups (n = 20 each) treated by the expert, moderately experienced, and low experienced clinician, respectively, were compared. RESULTS: (1) No significant differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes were observed between initial and final groups; (2) high, moderate, and low groups showed substantial vertical augmentation in limited operation time with treatment outcomes being influenced by the level of experience in implant surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The investigated technique allows for a substantial vertical augmentation at limited operation times when used by different clinicians. The extent of sinus lift (as radiographically assessed) seems to be influenced by the clinician's level of experience in implant dentistry.

Change in the Gingival Margin Profile After the Single Flap Approach in Periodontal Intraosseous Defects.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the association of patient-related and site-specific factors, as well as the adopted treatment modality, with the change in buccal (bREC) and interdental (iREC) gingival recession observed at 6 months after treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects with the single flap approach (SFA). METHODS: Sixty-six patients contributing 74 intraosseous defects accessed with a buccal SFA and treated with different modalities were selected retrospectively. A two-level (patient and site) model was constructed, with the 6-month changes in bREC and iREC as the dependent variables. RESULTS: (1) Significant 6-month increases in bREC (-0.6 ± 0.7 mm) and iREC (-0.9 ± 1.1 mm) were observed. (2) bREC change was significantly predicted by presurgery interproximal probing depth (PD) and depth of osseous dehiscence at the buccal aspect. (3) iREC change was significantly predicted by presurgery interproximal PD and the treatment modality, with defects treated with SFA in combination with a graft material and a bioactive agent being less prone to iREC increase compared to defects treated with SFA alone. CONCLUSIONS: After buccal SFA, greater post-surgery increase in bREC must be expected for deep intraosseous defects associated with a buccal dehiscence. The combination of a graft material and a bioactive agent in adjunct to the SFA may limit the postoperative increase in iREC.

Single-flap approach in combination with enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects.

Twenty-four periodontal intraosseous defects were accessed with a buccal single-flap approach (SFA) and treated with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) or EMD + deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) according to the surgeon,s discretion. EMD with or without DBBM was clinically effective in the treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects accessed with a buccal SFA. The adjunctive use of DBBM in predominantly one-wall defects seemed to compensate for, at least in part, the unfavorable osseous characteristics in terms of the outcomes of the procedure.