Search

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aim: This study evaluated marginal soft tissue recession at implants with simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR), at least five years after prosthetic loading., Material and Methods: Patients treated with GBR at the time of implant placement and adherent to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) program with at least 5 years of follow-up were re-examined in 5 clinical centers. At the last follow-up, clinical and radiographic data on peri-implant hard and soft tissue were collected. Multilevel analysis considering center, patient, and implant (brand, length, diameter, position) was performed., Results: A total of 96 patients and 195 augmented implants were included. The mean duration of SPT was 8.3 ± 3.1 years, while mean recall frequency was 4.5 ± 1.3 months. Sixty-five (33%) implants received soft tissue graft before prosthetic delivery. Twenty-one (11%) implants developed biological complications during the follow-up. No implant failure was reported. Mean difference in bone levels (ΔBL) was -0.7 ± 0.9 mm, while mean difference in keratinized tissue (ΔKT) was -0.4 ± 0.9 mm. Eighty-five (44%) implants showed recession (REC) of soft tissue margin (mean 0.6 ± 0.8 mm). The presence of REC was associated with use of non-resorbable membrane (p < .0001) and wider implant diameter (p = .0305), while use of soft tissue graft significantly predicted higher stability of peri-implant mucosal margin (p = .0003)., Conclusion: Peri-implant mucosal recession is a common feature 5 years after lateral GBR. The risk of recession may be reduced using GBR with resorbable membranes, small diameter implants, and soft tissue grafting before prosthetic treatment., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Different procedures were proposed to augment soft tissue around dental implants., Objective: Aims of this Systematic Review (SR) were to evaluate (a) clinical benefit of soft tissue augmentation at implant sites (b) which is the best surgical procedure to augment soft tissue., Materials and Methods: Manual/electronic searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change in keratinized tissue thickness (STT) and height (KT) were primary outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where suitable and expressed as weighted mean differences (MD) with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Fourteen RCTs accounting for 475 patients and 538 implants were included. Only five studies were judged at low risk of bias. In the single studies, soft augmentation lead to higher STT and KT compared to no augmentation. Considering primary outcomes, connective tissue graft (CTG) was more effective than xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) to improve STT (MD: -0.30 mm; 95% CI -0.43; -0.17; P < .00001) in the meta-analysis for different techniques for augmentation., Conclusions: Even if further studies at low risk of bias are needed, soft tissue augmentation techniques improved quantity and quality of peri-implant soft tissue. Among the augmentation procedures, CTG was associated to higher STT change compared to XCM., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Peri-implant soft tissue may be critical to prevent inflammation and promote gingival margin stability. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus connective tissue graft (CTG) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness at implant site., Materials and Methods: Soft tissue augmentation with XCM (test) or CTG (control) was performed at 60 implants in 60 patients at the time of implant uncovering. Measurements were performed by a blinded examiner at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Outcome measures included buccal soft tissue thickness (GT), apico-coronal keratinized tissue (KT), chair time and post-operative discomfort. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to evaluate patient satisfaction., Results: After 6 months, the final GT increase was 0.9 ± 0.2 in the XCM group and 1.2 ± 0.3 mm in the CTG group, with a significant difference favouring the control group (0.3 mm; p = .0001). Both procedures resulted in similar final KT amount with no significant difference between treatments. XCM was associated with significant less chair-time (p < .0001), less post-operative pain (p < .0001), painkillers intake (p < .0001) and higher final satisfaction than CTG (p = .0195)., Conclusion: CTG was more effective than XCM to increase buccal peri-implant soft tissue thickness., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess the quality of reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of implant dentistry, its evolution over time and the possible relations between quality items and reported outcomes., Material and Methods: RCTs in implant dentistry were retrieved through electronic and hand searches. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed focusing on study design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. Associations between quality items and year of publication of RCTs or reporting of statistically significant outcomes were tested., Results: Among the 495 originally screened manuscripts published from 1989 to April 2011, 276 RCTs were assessed in this SR; 59% of them were published between 2006 and 2011. RCTs were mainly parallel (65%), with a single centre (83%) and a superiority design (88%). Trials in implant dentistry showed several methodological flaws: only 37% showed a random sequence generation at low risk of bias, 75% did not provide information on allocation concealment, only 12% performed a correct sample size calculation, the examiner was blind solely in 42% of studies where blinding was feasible. In addition, only 21% of RCTs declared operator experience and 31% reported patient-related outcomes. Many quality items improved over time. Allocation concealment at high risk of bias (p = 0.0125), no information on drop-out (p = 0.0318) and lack of CONSORT adherence (p = 0.0333) were associated with statistically significant reported outcomes., Conclusions: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs in implant dentistry is poor and only partially improved in the last years. Caution is suggested when interpreting these RCTs since risk of bias was associated with higher chance of reporting of statistically significant results., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Dental implants are widely used to replace lost teeth. It was suggested that surgical manipulation/augmentation of peri-implant soft tissue may be beneficial to increase the width/thickness of keratinized tissue (KT) and to enhance aesthetic outcomes of implant therapy. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review of the literature concerning soft tissue management at implant sites., Material and Methods: Clinical studies were identified with both medline and hand searches. Three topics were considered in this review: (i) the significance of KT at implant sites, (ii) the surgical techniques to increase KT and (iii) soft tissue stability around implants., Results: Several papers concerning soft tissue management at implant sites were identified, mainly expert opinions, case reports and case series. In addition, a systematic review was selected. Generally, the level of evidence was weak. So far, literature analysis showed that (i) the width of KT did not influence the survival rate of dental implants; (ii) there is no evidence to recommend a specific technique to preserve/augment KT; and (iii) factors including bone level, KT and implant features have not been shown to be associated with future mucosal recession around dental implants., Conclusion: Although scientific evidence in most part is lacking, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites may need to be considered in some clinical situations.

Objectives: Anti‐resorptive agents have been linked to the development of MRONJ in patients undergoing dental surgical procedures. This survey aims to explore the level of knowledge and experience of Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology members in the management of patients treated with anti‐resorptive agents and with the risk of developing MRONJ. Materials and Methods: An 18‐item questionnaire was submitted by e‐mail to the SIdP members. Statistical analyses were carried out. Continuous variables were described as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median, and first and third quartile according to distribution's normality. Normality of data was checked with Shapiro–Wilk test. Results: Four hundred and fifty‐one questionnaires were returned by e‐mail (32%). Most of the respondents were private practitioners (81.8%). Only 47.7% declared to be highly confident in managing patients on anti‐resorptive therapy while 92.5% reported to have performed tooth extractions and 52.3% implant surgery in patients under anti‐resorptive therapy for osteometabolic disorders. One or more MRONJ‐affected patients were encountered by 63.2% of the respondents. Conclusions: This survey highlights the need to develop a "dedicated" program both for dentists and prescribers to improve the level of cooperation and to increase the level of awareness of patients treated with anti‐resorptive agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]