Why is there a lack of evidence regarding errors and complications in periodontal and implant therapy?

Factors influencing intraoperative and postoperative complication occurrence: A series of 1135 periodontal and implant-related surgeries

OBJECTIVES

In periodontology, it is widely recognized that evidence characterizing the incidence and effect of treatment complications is lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of operator-, procedure-, patient-, and site-associated factors on intraoperative and postoperative complication occurrence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single investigator reviewed records of patients treated by eight periodontics residents from July 2018 through June 2022. For each procedure, the investigator recorded each intraoperative and postoperative complication or indicated that no complication had occurred. These outcomes were analyzed against a panel of explanatory covariates. In addition, the severity of each postoperative complication was assessed using a standardized grading system.

RESULTS

A total of 1135 procedures were included in the analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were identified in 2.8% and 15.2% of procedures, respectively. The most common intraoperative complications were Schneiderian membrane perforation (1.3%) and gingival flap perforation/tear (1%), and the most common postoperative complications were dentin hypersensitivity (2.6%), excessive pain (2.5%), and infection (2.2%). Subepithelial connective tissue graft (odds ratio [OR]: 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6, 6.1; p < .001), guided bone regeneration (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.5; p = .004), and guided bone regeneration with implant placement (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.3, 7.6; p = .011) were associated with higher odds of postoperative complication, whereas lateral sinus elevation (OR: 102.5, 95% CI: 12.3, 852.9; p < .001), transalveolar sinus elevation (OR: 22.4, 95% CI: 2.2, 224.5; p = .008), open flap debridement (OR: 36.4, 95% CI: 3.0, 440.7; p = .005), and surgically facilitated orthodontic therapy (OR: 20.5, 95% CI: 1.2, 358.4; p = .039) were associated with higher odds of intraoperative complication occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous reports, procedure type appears to be the predominant factor driving complication occurrence. As analyses of treatment complications increase, individualized risk-benefit assessments will become progressively meaningful for patients.

Justification for the 2017 periodontitis classification in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions: A narrative review

Once a while, disease classifications have needed revision because new knowledge has accumulated, and new technologies and better treatments have emerged. Changes made to disease classifications should be trustworthy and openly justified. The periodontitis definition and classification system was changed in 2017 by the 'World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions'. The workshop, comprising clinicians and researchers, resulted in the production of a 23-article special issue that introduced the new definitions and classifications of periodontitis. In this narrative review, we critically review how the changes made to the periodontitis definition and classification were justified in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions. Under each of the eight items of the checklist, we have discussed how the item was or could have been considered in the light of the checklist and its guidance. In our view, the new definition and classification of periodontitis was presented in an understandable way, even though the changes from the previous definition were not made visible. However, the issues of (1) estimated changes in prevalence or incidence, (2) triggers for the change, (3) prognostic ability, (4) repeatability or reproducibility, (5) incremental benefits, (6) incremental harms or (7) net benefits and harms related to the introduction of new classification were not considered in the way suggested in the checklist. Thereby, a balanced assessment of potential benefits and harms associated with the new periodontitis classification system was not presented, and to a large extent it remains unknown if the use of the new classification system will provide more net benefits to patients and to the community than previous systems. It is our view that patients and societies deserve transparent and balanced assessments of the potential benefits and harms associated with the periodontitis classification. Importantly, these should reflect the values and preferences also of the patients and the wider community and consider the impact on resource usage.

Errors and complications in clinical periodontal practice due to methodologic bias and bad interpretation of the evidence

Different types of errors and complications may arise during and after the execution of periodontal or implant-related procedures. Some of the most relevant, although also controversial, and less commented, causative agents of errors and complications are methodological biases and bad interpretation of the evidence. Proper assessment of the literature requires of solid clinical knowledge combined with a systematic approach built on the recognition of common methodological biases and the avoidance of interpretive errors to critically retrieve, dissect, and judiciously apply available information for the promotion of periodontal and peri-implant health. This review addresses common types of methodological bias and interpretive errors that can alter the reader's perceptions on the real effect and potential ramifications of the reported outcomes of a given therapeutic approach due to bad interpretation of the available evidence: (1) types of methodological biases; (2) spin and interpretive bias; (3) interpretation pitfalls when assessing the evidence (4) choice of relevant endpoints to answer the question(s) of interest; and (5) balance between statistical significance and clinical relevance.

Comparison between flapless-guided and conventional surgery for implant placement: a 12-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The study was aimed at comparing implants installed with guided and conventional surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-nine total edentulous patients were selected, and maxillary contralateral quadrants were randomly assigned to static computer-aided implant surgery (S-CAIS): flapless computer-guided surgery, and conventional surgery (CS): flap surgery with conventional planning. Tomography scans were performed at baseline and 10 days after the surgery for deviation measurement, and radiography was done at baseline and after 6 and 12 months, for peri-implant bone level (PIBL) analysis. Peri-implant fluid and subgingival biofilm were collected to evaluate bone markers and periodontal pathogens.

RESULTS

S-CAIS showed less linear deviation at the apical point and the midpoint and less angular deviation (p < 0.05), with greater depth discrepancy in the positioning of the platform (p < 0.05). Higher values of vertical PIBL were observed for the S-CAIS group at baseline (p < 0.05), while lower values of horizontal PIBL were observed for CS (p < 0.05). Bone markers and Tf presented higher levels in CS (p < 0.05). Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique.

CONCLUSION

However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic levels and bone markers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Evaluating the different implant insertion techniques can guide clinical and surgical regarding the accuracy, the release pattern of bone markers, and the peri-implant bone level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ReBEC-RBR-8556fzp.