Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix Versus Free Gingival Graft for Augmenting Peri-Implant Keratinized Mucosa Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There is a growing evidence to suggest augmenting peri-implant keratinized mucosa in the presence of ≤ 2 mm of keratinized mucosa. However, the most appropriate surgical technique and augmentation materials have yet to be defined. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants using free gingival graft (FGG) versus xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) before commencing prosthetic implant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify observational studies comparing implant sites augmented with FGG to those augmented with XCM. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Six studies with 174 participants were included in the present review. Of these, 87 participants had FGG, whereas the remaining participants had XCM. At 6 months, sites augmented with FGG were associated with less changes in the gained width of peri-implant keratinized mucosa compared to those augmented with XCM (mean difference 1.06; 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 2.13; p = 0.05). The difference, however, was marginally significant. The difference between the two groups in changes in thickness of peri-implant keratinized mucosa at 6 months was statistically significantly in favor of FGG. On the other hand, XCM had significantly shorter surgical time, lower postoperative pain score, and higher color match compared to FGG. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, the augmentation of keratinized mucosa using FGG before the placement of the final prosthesis may have short-term positive effects on soft tissue thickness. XCM might be considered in aesthetically demanding implant sites and where patient comfort or shorter surgical time is a priority. The evidence support, however, is of low to moderate certainty; therefore, further studies are needed to support the findings of the present review.

Airflowing as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGOUND: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. METHODS: Twenty-six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring nonsurgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months. RESULTS: A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ± 20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved.

Alveolar ridge preservation versus early implant placement in single non-molar sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following extraction of non-molar teeth in comparison to early implant placement (EIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, patient-reported outcomes, and implant failure rate. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared ARP to EIP. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: A total of 106 studies were identified, of which five studies with 198 non-molar extraction sockets in 198 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in midfacial mucosal margin (mean difference (MD) -0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; p = .03) and ridge width (MD -1.70; 95% CI -3.19 to -0.20; p = .03) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP was also associated with less need for additional augmentation at implant placement, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of non-molar teeth has short-term positive effects on soft tissue contour, mucosal margin and thickness, and alveolar ridge width and height. It can also simplify future implant treatment by minimizing the need for additional augmentation.

Diode laser as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: Arandomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of diode laser (DL) versus SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. METHODS: Participants requiring non-surgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with DL or SI alone. Clinical parameters [full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level] were recorded at baseline, three and 6 months post-treatment. Visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 22 participants with stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without DL resulted in statistically significant reduction in FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits (p = 0.001 to <0.001). The participants in SI/DL group had a greater reduction in the percentage of deep PPDs (≥5 mm) compared to those receiving SI alone, but statistically significant differences between the two groups were not observed (16.40 ± 9.57 vs. 32.50 ± 38.76 at 3 months and 7.20 ± 6.86 vs. 19.50 ± 35.06 at 6 months). The difference in the mean total GOHAI scores was not statistically significant at 6 months with total GOHAI scores of 7.25 ± 2.45 and 5.40 ± 3.06 for SI and SI/DL groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the use of DL as an adjunct to SI in the treatment of stage III/IV periodontitis did not produce significant additional improvement in clinical parameters or patient reported outcomes in the 6-month observation period.

Association of different antidepressant classes with clinical attachment level and alveolar bone loss in patients with periodontitis: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the relationship of antidepressant medicine use with periodontal diseases, exploring the association of different pharmacological classes of antidepressant with observations of clinical attachment loss (CAL) and alveolar bone level (BL) in patients with periodontitis. BACKGROUND: Existing evidence on the impact of antidepressant medication on periodontal tissues has focused on some classes only and is still unclear. Therefore, this retrospective study evaluated the association of different antidepressant classes with clinical attachment loss (CAL) and alveolar bone level (BL). METHODS: This study was carried out in a population of patients aged ≥ 30 years old with periodontitis who sought treatment at the University of Florida from 2014 to 2018. The following variables were obtained from patients' records; usage of antidepressant medications and their pharmacological classes (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRI], tricyclic, atypical, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAO]), age, gender, smoking habit, mild systemic diseases, CAL, and cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and alveolar bone crest (BC) distance, defined as BL, in the Ramfjord index teeth. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-two periodontitis patients were evaluated, of which 113 (19.4%) were antidepressant users. Antidepressant users exhibited significantly lower BL and fewer sites with severe CAL (≥5 mm), than non-users (p < .05). Among all single-class antidepressant users, the SSRI users showed significantly less CAL and lower BL than non-users (p < .05). Patients taking combinations of the different classes of antidepressants also showed better CAL and BL than non-users. Generalized linear models, including variables such as gender, age, systemic diseases, and smoking, demonstrated that antidepressant users were more likely to have lower mean BL and fewer sites with severe bone loss (i.e. BL > 3 and >5 mm) than non-users (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant medications were associated with higher alveolar bone level and less clinical attachment loss in patients with periodontitis. When the different classes of antidepressants were analyzed individually, only the SSRI class users and the multiple-class users showed significantly less periodontal breakdown than non-users.

Effects of different antidepressant classes on dental implant failure: A retrospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested an association between taking antidepressants and dental implant failure. This study aimed to investigate the association of different antidepressant classes with dental implant failure. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients that received dental implants at the University of Florida from 2011 to 2016. The variables of implant failure, antidepressant use and classes (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRI], tricyclic antidepressants [TCA], atypical antidepressants [AA], and monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOI]), age, sex, smoking, mild systemic diseases, and implant location were obtained from patients' records. Odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) of implant failure in patients taking different antidepressant classes, in relationship to non-antidepressant users, were estimated, and the influence of multiple variables on implant failure were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 771 patients and 1,820 implants were evaluated. The statistically significant predictors for implant failure included smoking (OR = 5.221), use of antidepressants (OR = 4.285), posterior maxilla location (OR = 2.911), mild systemic disease (OR = 2.648), and age (OR = 1.037) (P <0.05). The frequency of implant failure was 33.3% in TCA users, 31.3% in SNRI users, 6.3% in SSRI users, 5.2% in Atypical antidepressant users, and 3.9% in non-users. Significant associations were observed between the use of SNRI (OR: 11.07; 95% CI: 3.265 to 33.82) and TCA (OR: 12.16; 95% CI: 1.503 to 71.58) and implant failure (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Users of antidepressants were at higher risk of implant failure than non-users. Patients taking SNRI and TCA were at the highest risk of implant loss, when compared with non-users. Conclusions about TCA, however, are based on a limited number of cases.