Despite etiological differences between aggressive and chronic periodontitis, the treatment concept for aggressive periodontitis is largely similar to that for chronic periodontitis. The goal of ...treatment is to create a clinical condition that is conducive to retaining as many teeth as possible for as long as possible. When a diagnosis has been made and risk factors have been identified, active treatment is commenced. The initial phase of active treatment consists of mechanical debridement, either alone or supplemented with antimicrobial drugs. Scaling and root planing has been shown to be effective in improving clinical indices, but does not always guarantee long‐term stability. Antimicrobials can play a significant role in controlling aggressive periodontitis. Few studies have been published on this subject for localized aggressive periodontitis, but generalized aggressive periodontitis has been subject to more scrutiny. Studies have demonstrated that systemic antibiotics as an adjuvant to scaling and root planing are more effective in controlling disease compared with scaling and root planing alone or with supplemental application of local antibiotics or antiseptics. It has also become apparent that antibiotics ought to be administered with, or just after, mechanical debridement. Several studies have shown that regimens of amoxicillin combined with metronidazole or regimens of clindamycin are the most effective and are preferable to regimens containing doxycycline. Azithromycin has been shown to be a valid alternative to the regimen of amoxicillin plus metronidazole. A limited number of studies have been published on surgical treatment in patients with aggressive periodontitis, but the studies available show that the effect can be comparable with the effect on patients with chronic periodontitis, provided that proper oral hygiene is maintained, a strict maintenance program is followed and modifiable risk factors are controlled. Both access surgery and regenerative techniques have shown good results in patients with aggressive periodontitis. Once good periodontal health has been obtained, patients must be enrolled in a strict maintenance program that is directed toward controlling risk factors for disease recurrence and tooth loss. The most significant risk factors are noncompliance with regular maintenance care, smoking, high gingival bleeding index and poor plaque control. There is no evidence to suggest that daily use of antiseptic agents should be part of the supportive periodontal therapy for aggressive periodontitis.
Aim
Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction often renders a lateral bone augmentation inevitable. Some patients, however, suffer from severe early (during graft healing, Eres) and/or ...late (during follow‐up, Lres) graft resorption. We explored the hypothesis that the “individual phenotypic dimensions” may partially explain the degree of such resorptions.
Materials and Methods
Patients who underwent a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure were screened for inclusion according to the following criteria: (1) a relatively symmetrical maxillary arch; (2) an intact contra‐lateral alveolar bone dimension; (3) the availability of a pre‐operative cone‐beam CT (CBCT); (4) a CBCT taken immediately after GBR, and (5) at least one CBCT scan ≥6 months after surgery. CBCT scans from different timepoints were registered and imported into the Mimics software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Bone dimensions of the contra‐lateral site of the augmentation, representing the “individual phenotypical dimension (IPD) of the alveolar crest”, were superimposed on the augmented site and registered accordingly. As such, Eres and Lres could be measured over time, in relation to the IPD (in two dimensions; per millimetre apically from the alveolar crest, in the centre of the GBR), as well as in three dimensions (the entire GBR, 2 mm away from the mesial, distal, and apical border for standardization).
Results
A total of 17 patients (23 augmented sites) were included. After Eres, the outline of the augmentation was in general located ±1 mm outside the IPD, but ≥1.5 years after GBR, it further moved towards the IPD (85% within 0.5 mm distance).
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that the dimensions of a lateral bone augmentation are defined by the “individual phenotypic bone boundaries” of the patient.
In the past decades, personalized regenerative medicine has gained increased attention. Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) such as PRP, PRGF, and L‐PRF, all serving as a source of a large ...variety of cells and growth factors that participate in hard and soft tissue healing and regeneration, could play a significant role in regenerative periodontal procedures. This narrative review evaluated the relative impact of APCs in alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor augmentation, and the regeneration of bony craters around teeth, both as a single substitute or in combination with a xenograft. L‐PRF has a significant beneficial effect on alveolar ridge preservation (<alveolar bone resorption, >bone quality). The data for PRGF are less convincing, and PRP is controversial. L‐PRF can successfully be used as a single substitute during transcrestal (≥3.5 mm bone gain) as well as 1‐stage lateral window sinus floor elevation (>5 mm bone gain). For PRGF and especially PRP the data are very scarce. In the treatment of bony craters around teeth, during open flap debridement, L‐PRF as a single substitute showed significant adjunctive benefits (e.g., >PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >crater depth reduction). The data for PRP and PRGF were non‐conclusive. Adding PRP or L‐PRF to a xenograft during OFD resulted in additional improvements (>PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >bone fill), for PRGF no data were found. Autologous platelet concentrates demonstrated to enhance bone and soft tissue healing in periodontal regenerative procedures. The data for L‐PRF were most convincing. L‐PRF also has the advantage of a greater simplicity of production, and its 100% autologous character.
Objective
The objective of this review was to assess the accuracy of available means of determining the BBT (buccal bone thickness) and/or BBL (buccal bone level). This was translated into the ...following research question: What is the accuracy of the available means of visualizing the BBP (buccal bone plate) to establish the BBT and/or the BBL, when compared to control measurements? As control measurements histomorphometric measurements, direct measurements and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements in the absence of metal are accepted.
Background Data: Methods
The literary search was performed by searching the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, up to July 13, 2021. Types of studies included were clinical, in vitro and animal trials, specifically looking into the bone level and/or bone thickness of the buccal bone plate at oral implants. Reference lists were hand searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers performed the data extraction and analysis. Only studies using reliable control measurements to evaluate the accuracy of the tested means of visualizing BBT and/or BBL were included for analysis. The QUADAS‐2 tool was used to perform bias analysis on the relevant studies. Extracted data was tabulated to show the differences between test and control measurements for BBT and BBL. For in vitro studies on CBCT measurements of BBT meta‐analysis could be performed.
Results
A total of 1176 papers were identified in the search. Twenty‐two articles were used for data extraction and qualitative analysis. Of these studies nine were animal studies, 9 were in vitro studies and four were human studies. Six animal studies and three human studies provided data on probing. CBCT and sonography as techniques for visualizing the buccal bone plate. Probing at implant sites seems to provide data that correlates with a consistent distance from the BBP. Meta‐analysis for probing studies could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the setups of these studies. Eleven studies on CBCT were eligible for inclusion. Of these three were animal studies, the remaining 8 studies were all in vitro studies. Meta‐analysis was performed on the accuracy of CBCT for in vitro studies, finding a significant underestimation of the BBT when compared to control measurements by a mean difference of −0.15 mm with 95%CI −0.26,−0.03. Three studies were identified on measurement of BBT and/or BBL by sonography. This included one human study and two in vitro studies. The identified studies show a low error when determining the buccal bone level or thickness using sonography. All included studies possess a high risk of bias according to risk of bias analysis, mostly due to selection of the patient.
Conclusion
A strong limitation of this systematic review is the inclusion of different studies with heterogeneous designs. Within the limits of this analysis it cannot be concluded that probing is an accurate way of visualizing the BBP. CBCT cannot yet be recommended as a standard diagnostic tool for follow‐up of the BBP at oral implants. The application of sonography as a diagnostic tool to visualize the BBP needs further scientific validation.
Aim
The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement.
Materials and ...Methods
After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re‐entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months.
Results
In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%—test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%—control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%—test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%—control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%—test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder.
Conclusion
Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).
PDF
