Influence of mobility on the long-term risk of tooth extraction/loss in periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether tooth mobility (TM) increases the risk of tooth extraction/loss. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023485425). The focused PECO questions were as follows: (1) "In patients with periodontitis, undergoing periodontal treatment, are teeth affected by mobility at higher risk of being extracted/lost compared to non-mobile teeth, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?" and (2) "In these patients, does varying degrees of tooth mobility increase the risk of tooth extraction/loss, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?". Results were reported according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify longitudinal studies. The different assessments of tooth mobility were pooled into three groups: TM0: Undetectable tooth mobility, TM1: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility ≤1 mm, TM2: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility >1 mm or vertical tooth mobility. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. Various meta-analyses were conducted, including subgroup analyses considering different follow-up lengths and the timing of TM assessment, along with sensitivity analyses. A trial sequential analysis was also performed. Eleven studies were included (1883 patients). The mean follow-up range was 10-25 years. The weighted total of included teeth, based on the sample size, was 18 918, with a total of 1604 (8.47%) extracted/lost teeth. The overall rate of tooth extraction/loss increased with increasing mobility: TM0 was associated with a 5.85% rate (866/14822), TM1 with the 11.8% (384/3255), TM2 with the 40.3% (339/841). Mobile teeth (TM1/TM2) were at an increased risk for tooth extraction/loss, compared to TM0 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 1.88-4.32]; p < .00001). TM1 had a higher risk than TM0 (HR: 1.96; [95% CI 1.09-3.53]; p < .00001). TM2 had a higher risk than TM1 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 2.19-3.70]; p < .00001) and TM0 (HR: 7.12; [95% CI 3.27-15.51]; p < .00001). The results of the tests for subgroup differences were not significant. Sensitivity meta-analyses yielded consistent results with other meta-analyses. Within the limits of the quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses, mobile teeth were at higher risk of being extracted/lost in the long-term and higher degrees of TM significantly influenced clinicians' decision to extract a tooth. However, most teeth can be retained in the long-term and thus TM should not be considered a reason for extraction or a risk factor for tooth loss, regardless of the degree of TM.

Long-term stability (21-30 years) of root coverage outcomes using sub-epithelial connective tissue grafts at single or multiple gingival recessions: A longitudinal case series.

AIM: To evaluate outcomes and predictive factors for the long-term stability of root coverage using a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and two healthy subjects (221 gingival recessions, GRs) were treated from 1987 to 1996. Keratinized tissue width (KTW), GR depth (RD), GR width (RW) and GR area (RA) were evaluated at baseline (M0) and at 1 month (M1), 1 year (M2), 11 years (M3), 21 years (M4) and 27 years (M5) after surgery. Primary outcomes consisted of complete root coverage (cRC) and relative dimensional changes in recession depth (measured in mm [c%-RD]), recession width (measured in mm [c%-RW]) and recession area (measured in mm2 [c%-RA]). RESULTS: cRC was 88.7% at 1 year (M2), 59.8% at M3, 44.4% at M4 and 51.9% at M5. Average c%-RD was 95.2% at 1 year, 81.9% at M3, 71.5% at M4 and 81.7% at M5. KTW increased after surgery and over time and was positively correlated with favourable outcomes. Increased baseline RA was associated with less favourable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The sub-epithelial connective tissue graft is effective in the treatment of GRs and facilitates long-term stability of clinical outcomes. Wider baseline RA was a strong predictor of unfavourable short- and long-term RC outcomes.

Long-term stability of gingival margin and periodontal soft-tissue phenotype achieved after mucogingival therapy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was two-fold: (i) to evaluate the long-term (≥5 years) stability of the gingival margin position, keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) in sites that underwent root coverage (RC) or gingival augmentation (GA); and (ii) to assess the influence of different local variables on the long-term stability of dental and gingival tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting short-term (i.e., 6-12 months after baseline surgical intervention) and long-term (≥5 years) follow-up data after surgical treatment of adult patients presenting single or multiple mucogingival deformities, defined as sites presenting gingival recession defects (GRDs) and/or (KTW) deficiency (i.e., <2 mm), were considered eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE-PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for articles published up to 15 May 2023. Mixed-effects multiple linear regression was used to assess the association between KTW, type of surgical procedure and time (i.e., independent variables) on the stability of the gingival margin in sites that received RC or GA therapy. RESULTS: Of the 2569 potentially eligible records, 41 (reporting 40 studies) met the eligibility criteria. Graphical estimates including data from all RC procedures found an upward trend in recession depth (RD) increase over time. Conversely, it was observed that in 63.63% of RC studies and in 59.32% of RC treatment arms KTW increased over time, particularly in sites treated with subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). Conversely, sites that underwent GA procedures generally exhibited an overall reduction of KTW over time. However, sites treated with free gingival grafts (FGGs) showed a decrease in RD after 10 years of follow-up. Three main findings derived from the pooled estimates were identified: (i) Gingival margin stability was associated with the amount of KTW present during short-term assessment (i.e. the greater the KTW at 6-12 months after treatment, the more stable the gingival margin). (ii) The use of autogenous soft-tissue grafts was associated with lower RD increase over time. (iii) Treatment approaches that contribute to the three-dimensional enhancement of the gingival phenotype, as clearly demonstrated by FGG, were associated with gingival margin stability. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of apical migration of the gingival margin appears to be directly related to the amount of KTW and GT upon tissue maturation. Interventions involving the use of autogenous grafts, either SCTG or FGG, are associated with greater short-term KTW gain and lower RD increase over time.

Non-surgical retreatment versus papillary preservation flap surgery for residual pockets: A randomized controlled trial with clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of non-surgical re-instrumentation (NSR) and papillary preservation flap (PPF) surgery at single-rooted teeth with residual pockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least a residual pocket depth (PD ≥ 5 mm) after Steps I and II were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive NSR or PPF surgery. The primary outcome was PD reduction, and secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL) change and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Outcome variables were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The examiner was blinded. Statistical analysis, one site for each patient, included descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Forty-six participants were enrolled, and one patient dropped out in the PPF group. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant PD reduction (1.3 ± 1.2 mm, p = .009 NSR; 2.0 ± 0.7 mm, p < .001 PPF) and CAL gain (1.0 ± 2.4 mm, p = .031 NSR; 1.4 ± 0.8 mm, p < .001 PPF). PD reduction between groups was not statistically significant (diff: 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.3 to 1.5]; p = .167). Pocket closure was 61% NSR versus 86% PPF (p = .091). Smoking was associated with less PD reduction of almost 1 mm in both treatments. Treatment time was longer for PPF surgery, but PROMs and post-operative pain were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both NSR and PPF reduced PD without significant difference between treatments at 6 months. PPF surgery may offer faster PD reduction, but smoking habits reduce treatment efficacy.

Minimal invasiveness in gingival augmentation and root coverage procedures.

Minimally invasive surgical procedures aim at optimal wound healing, a reduction of postoperative morbidity and, thus, at increased patient satisfaction. The present article reviews the concept of minimal invasiveness in gingival augmentation and root coverage procedures, and critically discusses the influencing factors, technical and nontechnical ones, and relates them to the underlying biological mechanisms. Furthermore, the corresponding outcomes of the respective procedures are assessed and evaluated in relation to a possible impact of a minimized surgical invasiveness on the clinical, aesthetic, and patient-related results.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05). RESULTS: In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Long-term comparison of root coverage procedures at single RT2 maxillary gingival recessions: Ten-year extension results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to assess root coverage outcomes 10 years after connective tissue graft plus coronally advanced flap (CTG + CAF) or CAF alone, at single RT2 maxillary gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one of the original 29 patients (11 treated with CAF + CTG and 10 with CAF alone) were available for the 10-year follow-up. A blinded and calibrated examiner performed all the measurements. Outcome measures included complete root coverage (CRC), recession reduction (RecRed), root coverage aesthetic score (RES), and keratinized tissue (KT) gain. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate patient satisfaction. RESULTS: CRC was maintained in 63% of the test group and 20% of the control group after 10 years, with a significant difference favouring CAF + CTG (p = .030). Furthermore, the addition of CTG was associated with greater KT gain (p = .0002) and greater papilla tip recession (p = .023) than with CAF at the last follow-up. No difference was detected regarding RecRed, RES, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CTG under CAF improved the probability of maintaining complete root coverage 10 years after single maxillary RT2 recession treatment.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05). RESULTS: In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Association between chronic kidney disease and periodontitis. A systematic review and metanalysis.

OBJECTIVES: Aims of this SR were to assess the association of Periodontitis (PD) with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and with different CKD stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Trials and EMBASE, up to April 4, 2021 were searched. RCTs, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies were considered. JBI's Critical Appraisal Tool for risk of bias assessment was used. The risk of PD was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (MH-OR); weighted mean difference for clinical attachment level (CAL) and periodontal probing depth (PPD) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Out of 1949 titles screened, 142 full texts were evaluated and 17 studies were included. CKD was associated to higher risk of PD (MH-OR = 2.36, [95% C.I. 1.25, 4.44]; p = 0.008), higher mean CAL (WMD = 0.41 mm [95% C.I. 0.22, 0.60]; p < 0.0001) and mean PPD (WMD = 0.25 mm [95% C.I. 0.03, 0.47]; p = 0.02) compared to healthy individuals. Severe CKD (stages 4-5 vs 2-3) resulted at higher risk of PD (MH-OR = 2.21, [95% C.I. 1.07, 4.54]; p = 0.03). Heterogeneity and risk of bias were high. CONCLUSIONS: An association between PD and CKD was found. It could be appropriate to consider PD a frequent CKD comorbidity.

Hypertension and periodontitis: A joint report by the Italian society of hypertension (SIIA) and the Italian society of periodontology and implantology (SIdP).

An accumulating body of evidence supports an independent association between high blood pressure (BP) and periodontitis, possibly mediated by low-grade inflammation. This joint report by the Italian Society of Hypertension (SIIA) and the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology (SIdP) working group on Hypertension and Periodontitis (Hy-Per Group) provides a review of the evidence on this topic encompassing epidemiology, biological plausibility, relevance, magnitude, and treatment management. Consensus recommendations are provided for health professionals on how to manage BP in individuals showing signs of poor oral health. In summary, (1) large epidemiological studies highlight that individuals with periodontal diseases have increased risk for high/uncontrolled BP independent of confounders; (2) mechanistically, low-grade inflammation might have a causal role in the association; (3) BP profile and control might benefit from periodontal treatment in pre-hypertensive and hypertensive individuals; (4) oral health status should be evaluated as a potential risk factor for high/uncontrolled BP, and effective oral care should be included as an adjunct lifestyle measure during hypertension management. Further research is needed to optimize BP management in individuals with poor oral health.

The impact of COVID-19 on Italian dentists: A cross-sectional survey on 2443 participants.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Italian dentists in terms of infection, strategies for infection control, organization of the dental clinic, attitude, and behavior. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey. The sample consisted of 8000 Italian dentists selected among 63,375 using a computerized random sampling method. An electronic informed consent had to be signed. The questionnaire categories were on demographic, infection risk management, organization, and dentists' attitude and behavior. Geographic macro-areas were used for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Among 8000 invited dentists, 2443 agreed to participate to the survey (30.6%). Mean age was 51.2 years, women were 34.5%. A total of 6.1% self-reported COVID-19 experience and higher rate of infection was reported in north Italy compared to the south (p < 0.05). FFP2/FFP3 respirators (97.1%) and visors (97.4%) were used by almost all dentists. While, natural ventilation and mouthwashes were the most frequent approaches used to reduce the infection risk. Most of the dentists reported positive attitude, nevertheless 83.6% felt an increased responsibility. CONCLUSION: The self-reported COVID-19 prevalence was 6.1% with some differences among geographic areas. COVID 19 had a deep impact on preventive strategies, dental office organization, and behavior within this sample.

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

COVID-19 and dental workers: The Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology (SIdP) survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the proportion of COVID-19 infections among a population of Italian Dental workers across different geographical area of Italy and to analyze the impact of both the preventive measures/strategies adopted and the psychological influences. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The current cross-sectional survey was administered with a web-based form. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be 18 years and being dentists or dental hygienists members of the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology (SIdP). A 23-item questionnaire concerning positiveness to COVID-19, clinical strategies and psychological attitude within the pandemic was administered. Sub-group analysis was conducted according to geographical macro-area. RESULTS: A total of 790 dentists and dental hygienists were included. A total of 4.7% participants developed a positive diagnosis to COVID-19. The Northwest of Italy experienced almost double of COVID-19-positive participants (p < 0.05). Preoperatory mouthwashes together with natural air change/ventilation were the most frequent approaches used to prevent COVID-19 outbreak. Positive and proactive attitudes were predominant among participants. Only a reduced proportion feels some concerns for the future. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of positive COVID-19 among dental workers in Italy was double in Northwest area in comparison with the whole country proportion. Preventive strategies comprise mainly ultrasound reduction and preoperative mouthwashes.

Surface disinfection and protective masks for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses: A review by SIdP COVID-19 task force.

OBJECTIVES: Primary focused question for this systematic review (SR) was "Which is the evidence about surfaces decontamination and protection masks for SARS-Cov-2 in dental practice?" Secondary question was "Which is the evidence about surfaces decontamination and protection masks against airborne pathogens and directly transmitted viral pathogens causing respiratory infections?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were used. Studies on surface decontamination and protective masks for SARS-CoV-2 in dental practice were considered. Studies on other respiratory viruses were considered for the secondary question. RESULTS: No studies are available for SARS-CoV-2. Four studies on surface disinfection against respiratory viruses were included. Ethanol 70% and sodium hypochlorite 0,5% seem to be effective in reducing infectivity by > 3log TCID. Four RCTs compared different types of masks on HCW. The single studies reported no difference for laboratory-diagnosed influenza, laboratory-diagnosed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness. A meta-analysis was not considered appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of evidence on the efficacy of surface disinfection and protective masks to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or other respiratory viruses in dentistry. However, the consistent use of respirator and routine surface disinfection is strongly suggested. There is urgent need of data on the efficacy of specific protection protocols for dental HCW against viral infections.

Aerosol transmission for SARS-CoV-2 in the dental practice. A review by SIdP Covid-19 task-force.

Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is predominantly spread from person to person. Aim of this narrative review is to explore transmission modality of SARS-CoV-2 to provide appropriate advice to stakeholders, in order to support the implementation of effective public health measures and protect healthcare workers that primary face the disease. "In vivo" and "in vitro" studies from laboratories and hospitals confirmed the presence of surface contamination and provided insight of SARS-CoV-2 detection in the air, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation where aerosol-generating procedures were performed. Measures for aerosol reduction, in conjunction with other effective infection control strategies, are needed to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in dental setting.

Periodontitis predicts HbA1c levels and glucose variability in type 1 diabetic patients: the PARODIA Florence Project study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the extent and severity of periodontal disease among type 1 diabetic patients (T1DM) and to investigate the possible association with systemic markers of glucose control and variability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were consecutively enrolled in a Diabetic Unit. A full-mouth periodontal evaluation was performed, and data on systemic markers of diabetes were collected. Descriptive statistics and logistic and linear models were performed. RESULTS: A total of 136 T1DM patients (mean age: 45.5 ± 14.6 years) were examined. Periodontitis was detected in 62% of cases (mean CAL: 3.0 ± 0.9 mm): stage III periodontitis was diagnosed in 32% of patients while stage IV in 8%. Mean level of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was 7.5% ± 1.4. Among the investigated factors, mean CAL (p=0.040) was associated with HbA1c ≥ 7%; 93% of patients with mean CAL > 6 mm showed HbA1c ≥ 7%. Mean CAL (p=0.004), mean PPD (p=0.005), mean FMPS (p=0.030), and stage III/IV periodontitis (p=0.018) predict glucose coefficient of variation (CV). CONCLUSIONS: Periodontitis showed a relevant prevalence in the present, well-controlled T1DM population and predicts poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥7%) and higher glucose variability. The present findings suggest that periodontal infection may have systemic effects also in T1DM patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The extent and severity of periodontitis and its possible systemic effects in T1DM patients could be underestimated.

Pocket resolution in regenerative treatment of intrabony defects with papilla preservation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

AIM: To systematically assess the clinical performance of different approaches for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects in terms of pocket resolution compared to access surgery with papilla preservation techniques (PPTs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to April 2020 to identify RCTs on regenerative treatment [guided tissue regeneration (GTR) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with or without biomaterials] of intrabony defects using PPTs. Results were expressed as weighted mean percentages (WMP) or risk ratios of pocket resolution at 12 months (considering both final PD ≤ 3 mm and ≤4 mm). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs were included. Based on a final PD ≤ 3 mm or PD ≤ 4 mm, the WMP of pocket resolution was 61.4% and 92.1%, respectively. EMD and GTR obtained comparable results. Pairwise meta-analysis identified a greater probability of achieving pocket resolution for GTR compared to PPTs. The number needed to treat for GTR to obtain one extra intrabony defect achieving PD ≤ 3 mm or PD ≤ 4 mm over PPTs was 2 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: Regenerative surgery represents a viable approach to obtain final PD ≤ 4 mm in the short-term.

Autologous connective tissue graft or xenogenic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession. 36-month follow-up of a randomized multicentre trial.

AIM: To report the 36-month follow-up of a trial comparing the adjunct of a xenogenic collagen matrix (CMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) to coronally advanced flaps (CAF) for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 125 subjects (61 CMX) with 307 recessions in 8 centres from the parent trial were followed-up for 36 months. Primary outcome was change in position of the gingival margin. Multilevel analysis used centre, subject and tooth as levels and baseline parameters as covariates. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the randomized and the follow-up population. Average baseline recession was 2.6 ± 1.0 mm. 3-year root coverage was 1.5 ± 1.5 mm for CMX and 2.0 ± 1.0 mm for CTG (difference of 0.32 mm, 95% CI from -0.02 to 0.65 mm). The upper limit of the confidence interval was over the non-inferiority margin of 0.25 mm. No treatment differences in position of the gingival margin were observed between 6- and 36-month follow-up (difference 0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.29 mm). CONCLUSION: CMX was not non-inferior with respect to CTG in multiple adjacent recessions. No differences in stability of root coverage were observed between groups and in changes from 6 to 36 months. Previously reported shorter time to recovery, lower morbidity and more natural appearance of tissue texture and contour observed for CMX in this trial are also relevant in clinical decision-making.