Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: a 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Comparison of immediate vs. delayed guided tissue regeneration in Infrabony defect of second molars after adjacent third molar extraction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The distal aspect of the second molar (d-M2) often exhibits infrabony defects due to the adjacent third molar. Although the defects can be treated by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) after removing the third molar, the optimal timing remains uncertain following third molar removal in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to compare delayed and immediate GTR treatments to assist in clinical decision-making.

METHODS

D-M2 infrabony defects with a minimum 1-year follow-up were collected and divided into three groups: Immediate GTR group, which underwent third molar extraction and received GTR simultaneously; Delayed GTR group, which underwent delayed GTR at least 3 months after third molar extraction; and Control group, which underwent only scaling and root planing during third molar extraction. The clinical and radiographic parameters related to the infrabony defect before GTR and post-surgery were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test or one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Dunn's test or the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 109 d-M2 infrabony defects were assessed. No significant differences were found between the two GTR groups, although both of them showed significant reductions in infrabony defect depth: the immediate GTR group (2.77 ± 1.97 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) and the delayed GTR group (2.98 ± 1.08 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

GTR can effectively improve d-M2 infrabony defects when the third molar is removed, whether simultaneously or delayed. Patients may experience less discomfort with immediate GTR treatment as it requires only one surgery.

Insights into Intra Periodontal Pocket Pathogenesis, Treatment, In Vitro-In Vivo Models, Products and Patents, Challenges and Opportunity

Periodontal disease is a multifactorial pathogenic condition involving microbial infection, inflammation, and various systemic complications. Here, a systematic and comprehensive review discussing key-points such as the pros and cons of conventional methods, new advancements, challenges, patents and products, and future prospects is presented. A systematic review process was adopted here by using the following keywords: periodontal diseases, pathogenesis, models, patents, challenges, recent developments, and 3-D printing scaffolds. Search engines used were "google scholar", "web of science", "scopus", and "pubmed", along with textbooks published over the last few decades. A thorough study of the published data rendered an accurate and deep understanding of periodontal diseases, the gap of research so far, and future opportunities. Formulation scientists and doctors need to be interconnected for a better understanding of the disease to prescribe a quality product. Moreover, prime challenges (such as a lack of a vital testing model, scarcity of clinical and preclinical data, products allowing for high drug access to deeper tissue regions for prolonged residence, lack of an international monitoring body, lack of 4D or time controlled scaffolds, and lack of successful AI based tools) exist that must be addressed for designing new quality products. Generally, several products have been commercialized to treat periodontal diseases with certain limitations. Various strategic approaches have been attempted to target certain delivery regions, maximize residence time, improve efficacy, and reduce toxicity. Conclusively, the current review summarizes valuable information for researchers and healthcare professional to treat a wide range of periodontal diseases.

The survival of periodontally treated molars in long-term maintenance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the survival of periodontally treated molars during maintenance care and identify the risk factors associated with molar loss among patients with periodontitis who received professional periodontal therapy and maintenance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Longitudinal studies with a minimum follow-up duration of 5 years published until 28 August 2023 were retrieved from the following databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science. All included studies reported data on molar retention. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the study quality. Statistical results of analyses of the overall survival rate and molar loss are presented as estimated standardized mean differences, whereas the results of the analyses of risk factors are presented as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

From among the 1323 potentially eligible reports, 41 studies (5584 patients, 29,908 molars retained at the beginning of maintenance therapy, mean follow-up duration of 14.7 years) were included. The pooled survival rate of the molars during maintenance therapy was 82% (95% CI: 80%-84%). The average loss of molars was 0.05 per patient per year (95% CI: 0.04-0.06) among the patients receiving long-term periodontal maintenance (PM) therapy. Fifteen factors were examined in this meta-analysis. Six patient-related factors (older age, lack of compliance, smoking, bruxism, diabetes and lack of private insurance) and five tooth-related factors (maxillary location, high probing pocket depth, furcation involvement, higher mobility and lack of pulpal vitality) were identified as risk factors for molar loss during maintenance therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggest that the long-term retention of periodontally compromised molars can be achieved. The average number of molars lost per decade was <1 among the patients receiving long-term PM therapy. Older age, noncompliance, smoking, bruxism, diabetes, lack of private insurance coverage, maxillary location, furcation involvement, higher mobility, increase in the probing pocket depth and loss of pulpal vitality are strong risk factors for the long-term prognosis of molars.

A Modern Approach to Treat Molar/Incisor Pattern Periodontitis-Review

Molar-incisor pattern periodontitis (MIPP) is a severe form of periodontal disease characterized by rapid attachment loss and bone destruction affecting the molars and incisors. Formerly referred to as aggressive periodontitis, the terminology for this condition was revised after the 2017 workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. Despite the modification in nomenclature, the treatment strategies for MIPP remain a critical area of investigation. The core principles of MIPP treatment involve controlling local and systemic risk factors, managing inflammation, and arresting disease progression. Traditional non-surgical periodontal therapy, including scaling and root planing, is commonly employed as an initial step together with the prescription of antibiotics. Surgical intervention may be necessary to address the severe attachment loss. Surgical techniques like resective and regenerative procedures can aid in achieving periodontal health and improving esthetic outcomes. This review article aims to provide an overview of the current understanding and advancements in the treatment modalities of MIPP. Through an extensive analysis of the existing literature, we discuss various modern therapeutic approaches that have been explored for managing this challenging periodontal condition.

Latest Findings of the Regenerative Materials Application in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Surgery: A Scoping Review

Regenerative dentistry represents a therapeutic modern approach involving biomaterials and biologics such as mesenchymal stem cells. The role of regenerative dentistry is promising in all branches of dentistry, especially in periodontology and implantology for the treatment of bony defects around teeth and implants, respectively. Due to the number of different materials that can be used for this purpose, the aim of the present review is to evidence the regenerative properties of different materials both in periodontitis and peri-implantitis as well as to compare their efficacy. Clinical trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies have been considered in this review. The outcome assessed is represented by the regenerative properties of bone grafts, barrier membranes, and biological materials in the treatment of intrabony and furcation defects, peri-implantitis sites, alveolar ridge preservation, and implant site development. Based on the studies included, it can be stated that in the last years regenerative materials in periodontal and peri-implant defects treatments have shown excellent results, thus providing valuable support to surgical therapy. To achieve optimal and predictable results, clinicians should always consider factors like occlusal load control, prevention of microbial contamination, and wound dehiscence. Further evidence is required about the use of enamel matrix derivative in alveolar ridge preservation, as well as of stem cells and bone morphogenetic proteins-2 in furcation defects and peri-implantitis sites. Considering the high amount of research being conducted in this field, further evidence is expected to be obtained soon.

Medium- and long-term clinical benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures in intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews have established the short-term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in intrabony defects. However, a hierarchy of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures regarding the medium- to long-term results of treatment does not exist.

AIM

To systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question "In periodontitis patients with intrabony defects, what are the medium- and long-term benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared with open flap debridement (OFD), in terms of clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters and tooth retention?".

MATERIAL & METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), reporting on clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures ≥3 years post-operatively, were systematically assessed. Clinical [residual probing pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, tooth loss] and radiographic [residual defect depth (RDD), bone gain (RBL)] outcome parameters were assessed. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed where possible.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood-derived growth factor constructs or with OFD only, were included. NMA based on 21 RCTs showed that OFD was clearly the least efficacious treatment; regenerative/reconstructive treatments resulted in significantly shallower residual PD in 4 out 8 comparisons [range of mean differences (MD): -2.37 to -0.60 mm] and larger CAL gain in 6 out 8 comparisons (range of MD: 1.26 to 2.66 mm), and combination approaches appeared as the most efficacious. Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse. There were only sparse radiographic data not allowing any relevant comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Periodontal regenerative/reconstructive therapy in intrabony defects results, in general, in shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain compared with OFD, translating in high rates of tooth survival, on a medium (3-5 years) to long-term basis (5-20 years). Combination approaches appear, in general, more efficacious compared to monotherapy in terms of shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain. A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.