A 3-year follow-up of implant placement in proximity to canalis sinuosus: Case study.

BACKGROUND: While the nasal fossa and nasopalatine canal are recognized limitations for immediate implants in esthetic areas, the canalis sinuosus (CS) and its branches have been largely overlooked. Neglecting this anatomy can lead to sensory issues, pain, and implant failure underscores the necessity of meticulous pre-surgical assessment and planning to mitigate risks and ensure implant success. This case highlights the need for comprehensive pre-surgical evaluation and precise planning to minimize these complications and ensure successful implant outcomes in this scenario. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 41-year-old woman with a history of root perforation and external root resorption was referred for dental implant placement. Following clinical evaluation and computed tomography, the presence of an accessory canal of the CS was identified. After meticulous planning to avoid implant contact with this structure, ridge preservation was performed. After 6 months, the implant was successfully placed following guided osteotomy. The case demonstrates clinical and radiographic stability after 36 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The correct diagnosis and planning, within a multidisciplinary team, can lead to successful implant placement in a challenging site with an anatomical variation. This study, to our knowledge, represents the first to propose an alternative treatment approach in the presence of CS in an esthetic region. KEY POINTS: Why is this case new information? This case emphasizes the importance of thorough pre-surgical evaluation to mitigate potential complications related to the CS. It is the first, to our knowledge, to propose an alternative treatment approach in the presence of this anatomical variation in an esthetic region. What are the keys to successful management in this case? Comprehensive pre-surgical evaluation, precise planning with detailed CBCT assessment to identify the CS, careful consideration of its anatomy during surgical intervention, knowledge of the limitations of tissue reconstructions, and precise clinical strategies to minimize associated complications. What are the primary limitations to success in this case? The need to position the implant with a safety margin from the CS led to implant positioning resulting in fenestration of the buccal bone plate, preventing its reconstruction due to the bone envelope's design, resulting in a discrepant gingival margin compared to the contralateral tooth, which did not allow for further crown lengthening due to a rather short root.

Biomechanical and histomorphometric analysis of osseodensification drilling versus conventional technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to search the literature for the answer to the following questions. In human studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase the resonance frequency analysis given in implant stability quotient value and the insertion torque value compared to the conventional technique? In animal studies: Does the osseodensification technique increase implant stability quotient, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy values over the conventional technique? DATA SOURCES: A search for studies was carried out in eight databases until August 2021. Out of the 447 publications found, 11 were included. RESULTS: In human studies, osseodensification technique showed better results for implant stability quotient values with a summarized median difference of 8.57. As for secondary stability, there was no significant difference, with summarized median difference of 4.49 in favor of the osseodensification technique. In animal studies, all results were favorable to the osseodensification technique. Regarding insertion torque, bone-to-implant contact, and bone area fraction occupancy between counterclockwise osseodensification technique vs conventional, the mean difference was 46.79 for insertion torque, 2.17 for bone-to-implant contact, and 2.11 for bone area fraction occupancy. High heterogeneity was observed between the studies. The risk of bias in humans was moderate in three studies and low in one; and in animal studies, four presented moderate risk, two low risk, and one high risk. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSION: The osseodensification technique showed improvement concerning the resonance frequency and the insertion torque value of implants in human studies. In addition, it increased the values of bone-to-implant contact, bone area fraction occupancy, and implant stability quotient in animal studies, when compared to the conventional technique.

Clinical and histomorphometric soft tissue assessment comparing free gingival graft and a collagen matrix as alveolar-sealer materials: a randomized controlled pilot clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the alveolar sealing performance between free gingival graft (FGG) and porcine collagen membrane (MS) and qualitatively assess patient-centered outcomes via a visual analog scale. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients were randomly divided into control (FGG) and test (MS) groups. After extraction, all the alveoli were filled with bovine bone grafts (small granules) and sealed. Follow-up was during the immediate postoperative period and after 3, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days. After 180 days, before implant placement, tissue samples were obtained for histologic analysis. The epithelial tissues were morphometrically measured for each sample. Qualitative information on the patient's perception of the treatment was collected after 7 days. RESULTS: A faster healing was observed for the MS group. After 60 days, all the sites from the MS were partially healed, in contrast with only five from the FGG. The histologic results after 120 days showed for the FGG group a predominant acute inflammatory process, whereas chronic processes were observed for the MS group. The mean epithelial heights found for the FGG and MS were 535.69 µm and 495.33 µm, respectively (P = .54). The intragroup analysis showed significant variance among the data (P < .001) for both groups. The qualitative result showed statistically more significative comfort for the MS group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, both techniques effectively promote alveolar sealing. However, the visual analog scale result was superior and more significant for the MS group, with faster wound healing and lower discomfort.

Influence of Donor Site and Harvesting Technique of Connective Tissue Graft on Root Coverage Outcomes of Single Gingival Recessions: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of root coverage when the (1) donor site of connective tissue graft is the palate or tuberosity and (2) when connective tissue graft is harvested with intra- or extra-oral de-epithelization techniques. METHODS: The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included complete root coverage, percentage of root coverage and keratinized tissue width. Searches were conducted until December 2019 in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CENTRAL. RESULTS: 3275 studies were retrieved, but no randomized trials (randomized controlled trials) were found comparing tuberosity and palate. Data were extracted for one arm assessing any connective tissue graft technique from 56 randomized controlled trials to compare intra-oral de-epithelization and extra-oral de-epithelization outcomes. Among these studies, none have harvested connective tissue graft from tuberosity. Patient satisfaction for intra-oral de-epithelization and extra-oral de-epithelization ranged between 79% and 95%. Complete root coverage for intra-oral de-epithelization and extra-oral de-epithelization techniques was 55% (95%CI 46-65) and 70% (95%CI 63-77). Metaregression analyzes demonstrated that free gingival graft presented 4.41 higher chance of CRC [odds ratio (OR)=4.41, p=0.001] compared to single incision technique, followed by Bruno's (OR=4.39) and double-blade (OR=3.85) techniques. There were no differences between de-epithelization techniques for percentage of root coverage and keratinized tissue width. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found to support the use of connective tissue grafts from the tuberosity. If complete root coverage is the major clinical goal, extra-oral deepithelization may be preferred over intra-oral de-epithelization techniques.