Socket shield technique: A systematic review of human studies

Background and Purpose Alveolar bone resorption after dental extraction frequently leads to situations in which long-term function and esthetic success of rehabilitations with dental implants is a challenge. Socket shield has been described as an alternative technique to maintain the alveolar ridge when placing immediate implants. The aim of this review is to evaluate the medium- and long-term clinical outcomes of the socket shield technique in human studies. Material and Methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Cochrane Collaboration tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results Six articles were included in this review. The studies analysed showed lower rates of horizontal and vertical alveolar bone resorption, better maintenance of the buccal plate, less marginal bone loss and better esthetic results than simple placement of immediate implants. However, a lack of homogeneity was found in evaluation methods of the different outcomes, surgical procedures and prosthetic management. Conclusions Based on the results of this review, it is possible to suggest that socket shield technique could be a good alternative in terms of alveolar bone maintenance, marginal bone stability and aesthetic outcomes in immediate implant treatment. However, it is not possible to recommend this technique as an alternative treatment with the same long-terms predictability as conventional immediate implants

Aprendizaje basado en juegos online para la mejora de la adquisición de competencias en Patología Médica Bucal

Estamos viviendo una situación complicada debido a la pandemia por el COVID-19. Durante el presente curso académico parte de nuestras asignaturas han pasado de una docencia presencial a una docencia online, esto ha sucedido en la asignatura Patología Médica Bucal del grado en Odontología. Este paso de la presencialidad a la docencia online requiere de nuevas medidas de motivación para aumentar la adquisición de conocimientos y mantener el aprendizaje activo. El objetivo de este proyecto ha sido aplicar diferentes juegos online para mejorar el aprendizaje en Patología Médica Bucal y la transferencia de conocimiento entre alumnos y profesores

Periosteal Pocket Flap technique for lateral ridge augmentation. A comparative pilot study versus guide bone regeneration

Background: Implant rehabilitation of posterior mandibular defects is frequently associated to a horizontal bone loss. There exist several regenerative techniques to supply this bone deficiency, one of which is the Periosteal Pocket Flap Technique (PPF) proposed by Steigmann et al. to treat small horizontal bone defects. The present study proposes a modification of this technique based on the concurrent use of PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of the PPF with the use of xenogeneic and autologous bone and PRGF in comparison with conventional Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures. Methods: Nine patients were enroled in the study (7 women and 2 men, mean age: 53 ± 2.74 years) and allocated to PPF or GBR. In both groups implant placement was performed simultaneously to bone regeneration. Preoperative CBCT scans were performed for each patient. Surgical time and postoperative pain were recorded, as well as tissue healing. Moreover, horizontal bone gain (mm), graft surface area (mm2) and graft volume (mm3) were evaluated. Results: Nine surgeries were performed: 6 PPF and 3 GBR. Regarding clinical outcomes, operative time was significative greater in GBR group than in PPF group (51.67 ± 3.51 min vs. 37 ± 5.69 min; p = 0.008). Postoperative pain was higher in GBR compared to PPF (p = 0.011). Regarding radiographical results, there were not significant differences in horizontal bone gain (PPF: 9.43 ± 1.8 mm; GBR: 9.28 ± 0.42 mm), surface area (PPF: 693.33 ± 118.73 mm2; GBR: 655.61 ± 102.43 mm2), and volume (PPF: 394.97 ± 178.72 mm3; GBR: 261.66 ± 118 mm3) between groups. Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates that the combination of autograft/xenograft and PRGF in PPF technique is a simpler, cheaper, and faster technique than GBR technique for achieving moderate lateral bone augmentation in implant treatment. Future randomised clinical studies are needed to confirm the results.Depto. de Especialidades Clínicas OdontológicasFac. de OdontologíaTRUEpu