Clinical outcomes of peri‐implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review

To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years. A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals. The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively. Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients

Platelet rich plasma injection grafts for musculoskeletal injuries: a review

In Europe and the United States, there is an increasing prevalence of the use of autologous blood products to facilitate healing in a variety of applications. Recently, we have learned more about specific growth factors, which play a crucial role in the healing process. With that knowledge there is abundant enthusiasm in the application of concentrated platelets, which release a supra-maximal quantity of these growth factors to stimulate recovery in non-healing injuries. For 20 years, the application of autologous PRP has been safely used and documented in many fields including; orthopedics, sports medicine, dentistry, ENT, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, urology, wound healing, cosmetic, cardiothoracic, and maxillofacial surgery. This article introduces the reader to PRP therapy and reviews the current literature on this emerging treatment modality. In summary, PRP provides a promising alternative to surgery by promoting safe and natural healing. However, there are few controlled trials, and mostly anecdotal or case reports. Additionally the sample sizes are frequently small, limiting the generalization of the findings. Recently, there is emerging literature on the beneficial effects of PRP for chronic non-healing tendon injuries including lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis and cartilage degeneration (Mishra and Pavelko, The American Journal of Sports Medicine 10(10):1–5, 2006; Barrett and Erredge, Podiatry Today 17:37–42, 2004). However, as clinical use increases, more controlled studies are needed to further understand this treatment

A histomorphometric meta-analysis of sinus elevation with various grafting materials

Several grafting materials have been used in sinus augmentation procedures including autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone and combination of these and others. Up to now a subject of controversy in maxillofacial surgery and dentistry is, what is the most appropriate graft material for sinus floor augmentation