Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single-blind controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded. RESULTS: BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm(2) ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm(2) ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm(2) ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm(2) ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm(2) ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm(2) ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown. CONCLUSION: GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction

Is alveolar ridge preservation an overtreatment?

The morphology and dimensions of the postextraction alveolar ridge are important for the surgical and restorative phases of implant treatment. Adequate new bone formation and preservation of alveolar ridge dimensions following extraction will facilitate installation of the implant in a restorative position, while preservation of soft tissue contour and volume is essential for an aesthetic and implant-supported restoration with healthy peri-implant tissues. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) refers to any procedure that aims to: (i) limit dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after extraction facilitating implant placement without additional extensive bone and soft tissue augmentation procedures (ii) promote new bone formation in the healing alveolus, and (iii) promote soft tissue healing at the entrance of the alveolus and preserve the alveolar ridge contour. Although ARP is a clinically validated and safe approach, in certain clinical scenarios, the additional clinical benefit of ARP over unassisted socket healing has been debated and it appears that for some clinicians may represent an overtreatment. The aim of this critical review was to discuss the evidence pertaining to the four key objectives of ARP and to determine where ARP can lead to favorable outcomes when compared to unassisted socket healing

Oral Microcosm Biofilms Grown under Conditions Progressing from Peri-Implant Health, Peri-Implant Mucositis, and Peri-Implantitis

Peri-implantitis is a disease influenced by dysbiotic microbial communities that play a role in the short- and long-term outcomes of its clinical treatment. The ecological triggers that establish the progression from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis remain unknown. This investigation describes the development of a novel in vitro microcosm biofilm model. Biofilms were grown over 30 days over machined titanium discs in a constant depth film fermentor (CDFF), which was inoculated (I) with pooled human saliva. Following longitudinal biofilm sampling across peri-implant health (PH), peri-implant mucositis (PM), and peri-implantitis (PI) conditions, the characterisation of the biofilms was performed. The biofilm analyses included imaging by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), selective and non-selective culture media of viable biofilms, and 16S rRNA gene amplification and sequencing. Bacterial qualitative shifts were observed by CLSM and SEM across conditions, which were defined by characteristic phenotypes. A total of 9 phyla, 83 genera, and 156 species were identified throughout the experiment. The phyla Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Actinobacteria showed the highest prevalence in PI conditions. This novel in vitro microcosm model provides a high-throughput alternative for growing microcosm biofilms resembling an in vitro progression from PH-PM-PI conditions

Immediate implant placement in fresh alveolar sockets with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap: A randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: Comparing PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, success, buccal bone thickness and patient-reported outcomes of immediate dental implants placed in fresh alveolar sockets using a flap or a minimal split-thickness envelope flap (MSTEF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants following random assignment into a flap or MSTEF group were placed immediately in anterior and premolar areas. Guided bone regeneration and autogenous connective tissue graft were used in all cases. A temporary prosthesis was provided followed by the final prosthesis at 16-18 weeks. Success and survival rates together with radiographic buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 12 months post-loading. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated through the Pink (PES) and White (WES) Aesthetic Score by 8 blind clinicians of different training background and incorporated in modified success criteria. RESULTS: 28 implants were placed on 28 patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in PES (10.54 control vs. 10.80 test), WES scores (6.97 control vs. 6.95 test) or success criteria including aesthetic parameters (modified success criteria) for the different specialty groups (Range 69%-92%). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in survival (100%), success (100%), buccal wall thickness between control (0.72 +/-0.22) and test group (0.92+/-0.31) and patients' reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate dental implant treatment with flap/ MSTEF provided similar mean PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, mean buccal bone levels and patients' satisfaction. However, aesthetic failures were common in both groups

Immediate implant placement in fresh alveolar sockets with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap. A randomised controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Comparing PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, success, buccal bone thickness and patient-reported outcomes of immediate dental implants placed in fresh alveolar sockets using a flap or a minimal split-thickness envelope flap (MSTEF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants following random assignment into a flap or MSTEF group were placed immediately in anterior and premolar areas. Guided bone regeneration and autogenous connective tissue graft were used in all cases. A temporary prosthesis was provided followed by the final prosthesis at 16-18 weeks. Success and survival rates together with radiographic buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 12 months post-loading. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated through the Pink (PES) and White (WES) Aesthetic Score by 8 blind clinicians of different training background and incorporated in modified success criteria. RESULTS: 28 implants were placed on 28 patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in PES (10.54 control vs. 10.80 test), WES scores (6.97 control vs. 6.95 test) or success criteria including aesthetic parameters (modified success criteria) for the different specialty groups (Range 69%-92%). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in survival (100%), success (100%), buccal wall thickness between control (0.72 +/-0.22) and test group (0.92+/-0.31) and patients' reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate dental implant treatment with flap/ MSTEF provided similar mean PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, mean buccal bone levels and patients' satisfaction. However, aesthetic failures were common in both groups

Surgical treatment of the residual periodontal pocket

The ultimate goal of periodontal therapy is to prevent further disease progression in order to reduce the risk of tooth loss. This objective can be achieved through a number of therapeutic modalities comprising both the nonsurgical and surgical phases of periodontal therapy. Nonsurgical periodontal treatment has been shown to control periodontal infection and to arrest progression of the disease in a significant number of cases. However, despite completion of nonsurgical treatment, a number of periodontal pockets, defined as 'residual', often remain. The presence of residual pockets may jeopardize tooth survival and be a risk factor of further disease progression, and ultimately tooth loss. Therefore, the aim of this review is to analyze the knowledge available on the indications for and the performance of periodontal surgical treatment of residual pockets in terms of 'traditional' (clinical, microbiological), patient-based and systemic health outcomes

Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains

Over the last few decades rapid advances in processes to collect, monitor, disclose, and disseminate information have contributed towards the development of entirely new modes of sustainability governance for global commodity supply chains. However, there has been very little critical appraisal of the contribution made by different transparency initiatives to sustainability and the ways in which they can (and cannot) influence new governance arrangements. Here we seek to strengthen the theoretical underpinning of research and action on supply chain transparency by addressing four questions: (1) What is meant by supply chain transparency? (2) What is the relevance of supply chain transparency to supply chain sustainability governance? (3) What is the current status of supply chain transparency, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of existing initiatives? and (4) What propositions can be advanced for how transparency can have a positive transformative effect on the governance interventions that seek to strengthen sustainability outcomes? We use examples from agricultural supply chains and the zero-deforestation agenda as a focus of our analysis but draw insights that are relevant to the transparency and sustainability of supply chains in general. We propose a typology to distinguish among types of supply chain information that are needed to support improvements in sustainability governance, and illustrate a number of major shortfalls and systematic biases in existing information systems. We also propose a set of ten propositions that, taken together, serve to expose some of the potential pitfalls and undesirable outcomes that may result from (inevitably) limited or poorly designed transparency systems, whilst offering guidance on some of the ways in which greater transparency can make a more effective, lasting and positive contribution to sustainability