Search

Abstract Aim This study was performed to histologically evaluate peri-coronal tissues of partially impacted and erupted third molars that did not exhibit pathologic peri-coronal radiolucency. Materials and methods Healthy patients with erupted or partially erupted (with part or all of the dental crown present in the oral cavity) mandibular third molars (classified as IA and IIA according to the Pell and Gregory classification) and vertically positioned (according to the Winter classification or erupted third molars) associated with peri coronal radiolucency of equal to or less than 2.5 mm. Associated with third molar surgery, tissue sampling from the distal area was performed, which was subjected to an anatomopathological examination to determine the histological nature. Results One hundred teeth (100 patients) were selected, and 100 specimens were analyzed. 53% of the sample were included in the non-pathological group and 47% showed pathological changes (fibrotic tissue (n 15), periodontal cyst-like (n 9), squamous epithelial metaplasia (4 cases), islands of odontogenic epithelial residues organized micro-cyst with keratocystic/ameloblastic appearance (4 cases), granulation tissue (n 8), giant cell tumour (n 4) and lobular capillary hemangioma (n 4)). Pathological changes did not have differences in incidence between the gender (p value = 0.85) and did not show any correlation with age, (p value = 0,96). Conclusions These findings suggest that radiographic appearance may not be a reliable indicator of the absence of disease within a dental follicle. Therefore, clinicians should pay attention to or follow up on even peri-coronal radiolucency of less than 2.5 mm.

Abstract Background Numerous clinical variables may influence early marginal bone loss (EMBL), including surgical, prosthetic and host-related factors. Among them, bone crest width plays a crucial role: an adequate peri-implant bone envelope has a protective effect against the influence of the aforementioned factors on marginal bone stability. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of buccal and palatal bone thickness at the time of implant placement on EMBL during the submerged healing period. Methods Patients presenting a single edentulism in the upper premolar area and requiring implant-supported rehabilitation were enrolled following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Internal connection implants (Twinfit, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) were inserted after piezoelectric implant site preparation. Mid-facial and mid-palatal thickness and height of the peri-implant bone were measured immediately after implant placement (T0) with a periodontal probe and recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm. After 3 months of submerged healing (T1), implants were uncovered and measurements were repeated with the same protocol. Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare bone changes from T0 to T1. Multivariate linear regression models were built to assess the influence of different variables on buccal and palatal EMBL. Results Ninety patients (50 females, 40 males, mean age 42.9 ± 15.1 years), treated with the insertion of 90 implants in maxillary premolar area, were included in the final analysis. Mean buccal and palatal bone thickness at T0 were 2.42 ± 0.64 mm and 1.31 ± 0.38 mm, respectively. Mean buccal and palatal bone thickness at T1 were 1.92 ± 0.71 mm and 0.87 ± 0.49 mm, respectively. Changes in both buccal and palatal thickness from T0 to T1 resulted statistically significant (p = 0.000). Changes in vertical bone levels from T0 to T1 resulted not significant both on buccal (mean vertical resorption 0.04 ± 0.14 mm; p = 0.479) and palatal side (mean vertical resorption 0.03 ± 0.11 mm; p = 0.737). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed a significant negative correlation between vertical bone resorption and bone thickness at T0 on both buccal and palatal side. Conclusion The present findings suggest that a bone envelope > 2 mm on the buccal side and > 1 mm on the palatal side may effectively prevent peri-implant vertical bone resorption following surgical trauma. Trial Registration The present study was retrospectively recorded in a public register of clinical trials ( www.clinicaltrials.gov - NCT05632172) on 30/11/2022.

Abstract Objective Implantology represents the gold standard for oral rehabilitation, unfortunately, often, despite there are no local contraindications to this type of rehabilitation, there are uncertainties regarding the general health of our patients. Many patients nowadays take bisphosphonate drugs, often without first seeking advice from an oral surgeon or a dentist. The purpose of this review is precisely to highlight any contraindications to this type of treatment reported in the literature, in patients who take or have taken bisphosphonate drugs. Methods For this study the scientific information sources were consulted using as search terms “(“bisphosphonate AND “dental implant”)”, obtaining 312 results, these were subsequently skimmed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and further evaluated their relevance to the study and the presence of requested outcomes. Results Only 9 manuscripts (RCTs, Multicentric studies and Clinical Trials) were included in this review, as they respected the parameters of this review, they were analyzed and it was possible to draw important results from them. Surely from this study it is understood that the use of bisphosphonate drugs does not represent an absolute contraindication to implant therapy, it is evident how adequate pharmacological prophylaxis, and an adequate protocol reduce the risks regarding implant failures. Furthermore, the values of marginal bone loss over time seem, even if not statistically significant, to be better in implant rehabilitation with bisphosphonate drugs association. Only a few molecules like risedronate, or corticosteroids, or some conditions like smoking or diabetes have shown a high risk of surgical failure. Conclusion Although this study considered different studies for a total of 378 patients and at least 1687 different dental implants, showing better results in some cases for dental implant therapy in cases of bisphosphonate intake, further clinical, randomized and multicentric studies are needed, with longer follow-ups, to fully clarify this situation which often negatively affects the quality of life of our patients and places clinicians in the face of doubts.