Variations in Soft and Hard Tissues following Immediate Implant Placement versus Delayed Implant Placement following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Patient-reported outcomes for bone regenerative procedures

Evidence-based dentistry used for decision-making and assessment of treatment includes three components: evidence from the literature, clinical expertise, and patient expectations. Patient satisfaction embraces affability, availability, and ability and can be examined using questionnaires or structured questions to the patient to evaluate patient perception of the treatment. The questions can be quantified using dichotomous, point, or visual analog scales. This would be a straightforward patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Validated and specific oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) questionnaires such as the oral health impact profile (OHIP), oral impact on daily performance (OIDP), or the dental impact on daily living (DIDL) can be used as PROMs, and these measures are appropriate for population studies, where you can measure changes over time and differences between treatment groups. PROMs have shown to enhance patient engagement when integrated into clinical care. PROMs for bone regenerative procedures are mainly used as secondary outcome and are concentrating on the prosthetic outcome more than the pain, discomfort, anxiety, and cost of the surgical procedures. Surprisingly, most patients are satisfied and willing to have the procedures performed again. Whether this is recall bias or not and how the information's from the dentist and the team influence the patients answers to PROMs questionnaires are discussed. The importance of patient perspectives in bone regeneration procedures is obvious and combined with clinical outcome measures, it increases our ability to provide better care. Studies using PROMs as a primary outcome variable are required.

Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Oral Surgery and Implantology: A Narrative Review

Background

The application of blood concentrates has gained popularity in dentistry in recent years. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been discussed frequently due to a high content of growth factors and the option of chair-side manufacturing in a simple centrifugation process. PRF is free from adjuvants and inexpensive to produce. The number of studies reporting beneficial effects of PRF in various clinical applications such as alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor elevation, management and prevention of medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, third molar extractions, and guided bone regeneration in dentistry has increased recently. However, to date, neither clinical recommendations nor guidelines are available. The present narrative review aims to summarize the level of evidence on the clinical application of PRF within the field of oral surgery and implantology.

Summary

A literature search in Pubmed and Medline has identified 34 articles as a basis for this narrative review. The effectiveness of the clinical application of PRF has been analyzed for five indications within dentistry: medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, wisdom tooth extraction, guided bone regeneration, sinus floor elevation, and alveolar ridge preservation. The amount of data for third molar extractions, socket preservation, and guided bone regeneration is extensive. Less data were available for the use of PRF in combination with sinus floor elevations. There is a lack of studies with scientific evidence on PRF and medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw; however, studies positively impact patient-related outcome measures. Most studies report on beneficial effects when PRF is additionally applied in intrabony defects. There is no evidence of the positive effects of PRF combined with bone graft materials during sinus floor elevation. However, some benefits are reported with PRF as a sole filling material.

Key Messages

Many recently published studies show the positive clinical impact of PRF. Yet, further research is needed to ensure the validity of the evidence.

Socket Preservation after Tooth Extraction: Particulate Autologous Bone vs. Deproteinized Bovine Bone

Background: The technique of socket preservation after tooth extraction allows for less volumetric decrease after tooth extraction. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate differences between alveolar socket preservation performed with deproteinized bovine bone graft and autologous particulate bone graft taken from the mandibular ramus. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study enrolled a total of 21 consecutive patients. A total of 11 patients underwent socket preservation with deproteinized bovine bone graft and collagen matrix (group A), and 10 patients underwent socket preservation performed with particulate autologous bone taken from the mandibular ramus and collagen matrix (group B). All patients received cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) before socket preservation and after four months. Alveolar bone width (ABW) values and alveolar bone height (ABH) values were measured at the first and second CBCT, and the reduction of the values in the two groups was compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test for independent variables, and p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between ABW reduction of group A and ABW reduction of group B (t-test value p = 0.28). There were no statistically significant differences between ABH reduction of group A and ABH reduction of group B (t-test value p = 0.10). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, no statistical differences were found between the group that received autologous particulate bone compared to the group that received deproteinized bovine bone in socket preservation.

Evaluation of Deviations between Computer-Planned Implant Position and In Vivo Placement through 3D-Printed Guide: A CBCT Scan Analysis on Implant Inserted in Esthetic Area

Background: Implant rehabilitation in cases of monoedentulism in the esthetic area is a challenge for the clinician. The aim of our study was to test the diagnostic–therapeutic accuracy of computer-guided implant placement in the esthetic area. Methods: Postimplant surgery cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of computer-guided implant placement compared to the preoperative computer-digital planned implant position. We selectively enrolled CBCT scans of patients who underwent immediate or delayed implant placement of a single maxillary incisor, treated with computer-guided implant surgery through a tooth-supported digitally designed 3D printed guide. Our analysis consisted of three digital measurements: the mean deviation of the implant axis, and the mean mesiodistal implant deviation measured both at the apex and at the head of the implant. Results: A total of 95 implants were placed in 95 patients (60 Males, 35 Females; age from 27 to 45-year-old). Congruence analysis showed a mean deviation of implant axis of 1.04° ± 0.56° in sagittal projection, a mean mesiodistal implant deviation between adjacent teeth of 0.14 mm ± 0.07 mm at implant head level and 0.8 mm ± 0.3 mm at the apex in axial projection. Conclusions: computer-guided implant placement through a tooth-supported guide was extremely accurate in the esthetic area because the deviations between the real implant position and the preoperative planning was not clinically relevant.