Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: A Consensus Report From the AAP regeneration workshop

Management of gingival recession defects, a common periodontal condition, using root coverage procedures is an important aspect of periodontal regenerative therapy. The goal of the periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures group was to develop a consensus report based on the accompanying systematic review of root coverage procedures, including priorities for future research and identification of the best evidence available to manage different clinical scenarios. The group reviewed and discussed the accompanying systematic review, which covered treatment of single-tooth recession defects, multiple-tooth recession defects, and additional focused questions on relevant clinical topics. The consensus group members submitted additional material for consideration by the group in advance and at the time of the meeting. The group also identified priorities for future research. All reviewed root coverage procedures provide significant reduction in recession depth, especially for Miller Class I and II recession defects. Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) procedures provide the best root coverage outcomes. Acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) can serve as alternatives to autogenous donor tissue. Additional research is needed to do the following: 1) assess the treatment outcomes for multiple-tooth recession defects, oral sites other than maxillary canine and premolar teeth, and Miller Class III and IV defects; 2) assess the role of patient- and site-specific factors on procedure outcomes; and 3) obtain evidence on patient-reported outcomes. Predictable root coverage is possible for single-tooth and multiple-tooth recession defects, with SCTG procedures providing the best root coverage outcomes. Alternatives to SCTG are supported by evidence of varying strength. Additional research is needed on treatment outcomes for specific oral sites. Clinical Recommendation: For Miller Class I and II single-tooth recession defects, SCTG procedures provide the best outcomes, whereas ADMG or EMD in conjunction with CAF may be used as an alternative

An Osteotomy Tool That Preserves Bone Viability: Evaluation in Preclinical and Clinical Settings

The main objectives of this work were to assess the efficiency, ease-of-use, and general performance of a novel osseoshaping tool based on first-user clinical experiences and to compare these observations with preclinical data generated in rodents using a miniaturized version of the instrument. All patients selected for the surgery presented challenging clinical conditions in terms of the quality and/or quantity of the available bone. The presented data were collected during the implant placement of 15 implants in 7 patients, and included implant recipient site (bone quality and quantity) and ridge evaluation, intra-operative handling of the novel instrument, and the evaluation of subsequent implant insertion. The instrument was easy to handle and was applied without any complications during the surgical procedure. Its use obviated the need for multiple drills and enabled adequate insertion torque in all cases. This biologically driven innovation in implant site preparation shows improvements in preserving vital anatomical and cellular structures as well as simplifying the surgical protocol with excellent ease-of-use and handling properties

Treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteinsor or barrier membranes: Results from a multicenter practice-based clinical trial

Background: This prospective multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the clinical outcomes of enamel matrix proteins (EMD) versus placement of a bioabsorbable membrane in conjunction with guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Methods: Seventy-five patients with advanced chronic periodontitis were recruited in seven centers in three countries. All patients had at least one intrabony defect of ≥3 mm. Heavy smokers (≥20 cigarettes/day) were excluded. The surgical procedures included access for root instrumentation using the simplified papilla preservation flap and either the application of EMD or the placement of a GTR membrane. At baseline and 1 year following the interventions, clinical attachment levels (CAL), probing depths (PD), recession (REC), full-mouth plaque scores, and full-mouth bleeding scores were assessed. A total of 67 patients completed the study. Results: At 1 year, the EMD defects gained 3.1 ± 1.8 mm of CAL, versus 2.5 ± 1.9 mm for GTR defects. Probing depth reduction was 3.8 ± 1.5 mm and 3.3 ± 1.5 mm, respectively. A multivariate analysis indicated that the differences between EMD and GTR treatments were not significant while a center effect and baseline PD significantly influenced CAL gains. No significant differences in terms of frequency distribution of the outcomes were observed. All cases treated with GTR presented at least one surgical complication, mostly membrane exposure, while only 6% of EMD treated sites displayed complications (P<0.0001). Conclusions: The results of this trial failed to demonstrate superiority of one treatment modality over the other. GTR outcomes in this trial were lower than anticipated based on previous evidence. This was attributed to the high prevalence of post-surgical complications in the GTR group.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Occurrence, associated factors and soft tissue reconstructive therapy for buccal soft tissue dehiscence at dental implants: Consensus report of group 3 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations

Xenogenic collagen matrix or autologous connective tissue graft as adjunct to coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession: Randomized trial assessing non-inferiority in root coverage and superiority in oral health-related quality of life

Aim: To evaluate the non-inferiority of the adjunct of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) to coronally advanced flaps (CAF) for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions and compare superiority in patient-reported outcomes (PROM). Material and methods: One hundred and eighty-seven subjects (92 CMX) with 485 recessions in 14 centres were randomized and followed up for 6 months. Patients filled daily diaries for 15 days to monitor patient-reported experience. The primary outcome was changed in position of the gingival margin. Multilevel analysis used centre, subject and tooth as levels and baseline parameters as covariates. Results: Average baseline recession was 2.5 ± 1.0 mm. The surgery was 15.7 min shorter (95%CI from 11.9 to 19.6, p <.0001) and perceived lighter (11.9 VAS units, 95%CI from 4.6 to 19.1, p =.0014) in CMX subjects. Time to recovery was 1.8 days shorter in CMX. Six-month root coverage was 1.7 ± 1.1 mm for CMX and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm for CTG (difference of 0.44 mm, 95%CI from 0.25 to 0.63 mm). The upper limit of the confidence interval was over the non-inferiority margin of 0.25 mm. Odds of complete root coverage were significantly higher for CTG (OR = 4.0, 95% CI 1.8â\u80\u938.8). Conclusion: Replacing CTG with CMX shortens time to recovery and decreases morbidity, but the tested generation of devices is probably inferior to autologous CTG in terms of root coverage. Significant variability in PROMs was observed among centres