The association between three attitude-related indexes of oral hygiene and secondary implant failures: A retrospective longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the strength of the association between three widely used clinical indexes considered as distal behavioural indicators of attitude-related oral status (an index of oral hygiene, the plaque index [PI] and two periodontal indexes, that is the presence of bleeding on probing [BOP] and of pockets probing depth [PPD]) and secondary implant failure due to peri-implantitis in patients rehabilitated with cemented prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included patients who underwent implant-prosthetic rehabilitation and had joined the programme of maintenance of the same hospital. Implant failures, number of months between implant insertion and implant loading, and patients' surgical protocol were monitored and recorded. Further, PI, BOP and PPD-all attitude-related indicators of oral hygiene and periodontal inflammation-were recorded and related, in terms of odds ratios (ORs ) and corresponding risk factors, to secondary implant failures. RESULTS: A total of 1427 patients (2673 implants) were enrolled. The follow-up ranged from 1.5 to 9 years (mean 5.3 years±1.3). The cumulative survival rate was 98.01%. Thirty-two patients (36 implants, 1.36% of all implants) had implant failure. A statistically significant association between PI, BOP, PPD and secondary failures due to peri-implantitis was observed. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, all three attitude-related behavioural indicators-the plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and abnormal probing pocket depth (PPD)-proved to be significant risk indicators for secondary implant failure due to peri-implantitis, both from a clinical and from a socio-psychological attitude-related perspective.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 dental implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 9 January 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Ten eligible trials were identified, but three were excluded. The following procedures were tested: (1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; (2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; (3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; (4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; (5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening; and (6) nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite versus Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. The only statistically significant differences were observed in two trials judged to be at high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed improved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) of 0.59 mm. After 6 months, patients with perimplant infrabony defects > 3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers gained 0.5 mm more PAL (borderline difference) and PPD than patients treated with a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. The use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients affected by severe forms of perimplantitis. After 6 months both augmentation therapies appeared to be successful but improved PAL and PPD (0.5 mm) were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barriers. In four trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Sample sizes were very small and follow up too short, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. Larger well-designed RCTs are needed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental implants.

BACKGROUND: It is important to institute an effective supportive therapy to maintain or recover soft tissue health around dental implants. Different maintenance regimens have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypotheses of no difference between different interventions (1) for maintaining healthy peri-implant soft tissues, and (2) for recovering soft tissue health, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and to an internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or recovering healthy tissues around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using standardised mean differences for continuous data and risk ratios for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs were identified. Nine of these trials, which reported results from a total of 238 patients, were included. Follow ups ranged between 6 weeks and 1 year. No meta-analysis could be made since every RCT tested different interventions. Listerine mouthwash showed a reduction of 54% in plaque and 34% in marginal bleeding compared with a placebo. Two trials evaluated the efficacy of powered and sonic toothbrushes compared to manual toothbrushing and showed no statistically significant differences, though more patients liked the sonic brush. No statistical differences were found between brushing with a hyaluronic or a chlorhexidine gel, between cleaning with an etching gel or manually, between injecting a chlorhexidine or a physiologic solution inside the implant's inner part and between submucosal minocycline and a chlorhexidine gel. When an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF(2)) mouthrinse was compared with a chlorhexidine one, no statistically significant differences were found for implant failures and staining index while patients preferred and had less taste change with the AmF/SnF(2) mouthrinse. Self administered subgingival chlorhexidine irrigation resulted in statistically significantly lower plaque and marginal bleeding than a chlorhexidine mouthwash, however the mouthwash was given at a suboptimal dosage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining or recovering health of peri-implant soft tissues. The included RCTs had short follow-up periods and few subjects. There was not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long term maintenance. This should not be interpreted as current maintenance regimens are ineffective. There was weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as an adjunct to routine oral hygiene, is effective in reducing plaque and marginal bleeding around implants. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials powered to find possible differences, using primary outcome measures and with much longer follow up. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those that have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and neck region may benefit particularly from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: To compare success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Only one RCT was identified and included. Thirteen patients received HBO therapy while other 13 did not. Two to six implants were placed in fully edentulous mandibles to be rehabilitated with bar-retained overdentures. One year after implant loading four patients died from each group. One patient, treated with HBO, developed an osteoradionecrosis and lost all implants so the prosthesis could not be provided. Five patients in the HBO group had at least one implant failure versus two in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative complications and patient satisfaction between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited amount of clinical research available, it appears that HBO therapy in irradiated patients requiring dental implants may not offer any appreciable clinical benefits. There is a definite need for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multicentred.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performance. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Forty different RCTs were identified. Sixteen of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 771 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Eighteen different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for perimplant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Brånemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are usually placed by elevating a soft tissue flap, but in some instances, they can also be placed flapless reducing patient discomfort. Several flap and suturing techniques have been proposed. Soft tissues are often manipulated and augmented for aesthetic reasons. It is often recommended that implants are surrounded by a sufficient width of attached/keratinized mucosa to improve their long-term prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1a) flapless procedures are beneficial for patients, and (1b) which is the ideal flap design; whether (2a) soft tissue correction/augmentation techniques are beneficial for patients, and (2b) which are the best techniques; whether (3a) techniques to increase the perimplant keratinized mucosa are beneficial for patients, and (3b) which are the best techniques; and (4) which are the best suturing techniques/materials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues in relation to dental implants. Outcome measures were: prosthetic and implant failures, aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists, biological complications, postoperative pain, patient preference, ease of maintenance by patient, and width of the attached/keratinized mucosa. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Eight potentially eligible RCTs were identified and five trials including 140 patients in total were included. Two trials (100 patients) compared flapless placement of dental implants with conventional flap elevation, two trials (20 patients) crestal versus vestibular incisions, and one trial (20 patients) Erbium:YAG laser versus flap elevation at the second-stage surgery for implant exposure. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with laser induced statistically significant less postoperative pain than flap elevation. There were no other statistically significant differences for any of the remaining analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Flapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in adequately selected patients. There is insufficient reliable evidence to provide recommendations on which are the best incision/suture techniques/materials, or whether techniques to correct/augment perimplant soft tissues or to increase the width of keratinized/attached mucosa are beneficial to patients or not. Properly designed and conducted RCTs are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement.

BACKGROUND: Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same 2-piece osseointegrated root-form dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs were identified and two trials including 45 patients in total were included. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw reliable conclusions, however it appears that the two procedures did not show clinical significant differences. If these preliminary results will be confirmed by more robust trials, a 1-stage procedure might be preferable since it avoids one minor surgical intervention and shortens the waiting time to provide the final restoration. There might be specific situations though, such as when optimal implant stability is not obtained at placement or when barriers are used in conjunction with implants, in which a 2-stage approach might be preferable.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated dental implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediately and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles (lower jaws) of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times 6 months to 1 year after loading. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow up of 6 months to 1 year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants immediately (within 1 week); early (between 1 week to 2 months); and conventionally loaded (after 2 months). Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were identified and 11 trials including 300 patients in total were included. Six trials compared immediate versus conventional loading, three early versus conventional loading and two immediate versus early loading. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to successfully load dental implants immediately or early after their placement in selected patients, though not all clinicians may achieve optimal results when loading the implant immediately. A high degree of primary implant stability (high value of insertion torque) seems to be one of the prerequisites for a successful immediate/early loading procedure. More well designed RCTs are needed. Priority should be given to trials comparing immediately versus early loaded implants to improve patient satisfaction and decrease treatment time. These trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: 1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; 2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; 3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; 4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; 5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: (A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 1 October 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 330 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. No bone promoting molecule has been shown to be effective or necessary in conjunction with dental implant treatment. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development. OBJECTIVES: To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.

Comparison of 2 techniques of subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions.

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcome of connective tissue grafts in the treatment of gingival recessions has been documented in numerous studies. However, no attempt has been made to correlate the postoperative mucogingival changes with the surgical parameters. The present retrospective clinical study was undertaken to 1) evaluate root coverage and mucogingival changes 1 to 1.5 years following treatment of Miller's Class I and II recession defects using 2 variants of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) procedure, and 2) assess the effect of the surgical parameters on the postoperative gingival width. METHODS: Thirty-one recessions in 10 patients treated with the envelope technique (E) and 31 recessions in 11 patients treated with coronally positioned flap combined with connective tissue graft (CP) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate: 1) percentage of root coverage obtained with the 2 procedures and variations in width of keratinized tissue (KT) 1 to 1.5 years postsurgery, and 2) the effect of the surgical parameters on the postoperative gingival width. RESULTS: Results showed a mean root coverage percentage of 89.6 +/- 15% for the E group and 94.7 +/- 11.4% for the CP group; the difference between groups was statistically insignificant (P = 0.1388). Mean KT increased significantly from 1.4 +/- 1.1 mm presurgery to 4.5 +/- 1.1 mm postsurgery for the E group while a minor increase in KT was observed in the CP group (2 +/- 1.5 mm presurgery versus 2.7 +/- 1.6 mm postsurgery). For both treatment groups, the mean postsurgical width of keratinized tissue (POSTKT) was found to be mathematically correlated with the mean presurgical width of keratinized tissue (PREKT) and the corono-apical height of the graft that remained exposed (GE) coronal to the flap margin in the recipient site. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of human gingival recession defects by the 2 variants of SCTG resulted in significant recession reduction. When SCTG is grafted beneath alveolar mucosa using the combined technique (CP), transformation of the mucosa into keratinized tissue does not seem to occur, at least within 1 to 1.5 years postsurgery. The treatment outcome in terms of keratinized tissue width seems to be correlated with the presurgical gingival dimensions and the height of the graft that remains exposed at the end of the surgical procedure.

Histology of connective tissue graft. A case report.

BACKGROUND: Few investigations can be found in the literature on the histological nature of the attachment of connective tissue grafts to root surfaces previously exposed by recession. METHODS: In this case report, a 24-year-old patient was treated with a connective tissue graft combined with a partial-thickness coronally positioned flap for root coverage of Class I Miller recessions at the maxillary right and left canines and first premolars. The treated sites exhibited 83% and 100% root coverage on the right and left sides, respectively. Twelve months later, the case required extraction of all 4 first premolars for orthodontic reasons. Two conservative block sections including the maxillary first premolars with the buccal soft tissues were obtained and processed histologically in a bucco-palatal plane. RESULTS: Histological analysis showed that healing occurred via a long junctional epithelium throughout the major portion of the previous recession site. Only minimal signs of new cementum-like tissue formation could be seen in the apical portion of the recession area coronal to the base of the instrumented root surface. No root resorption or ankylosis could be detected in any of the serial sections. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this case report outline the possible variations in the histological outcome of connective tissue grafts. These variations can be attributed to differences in size and shape of the recession defects and flap positioning at the end of surgery.