Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer to the following questions: (a) In patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, which grafting material best attenuates horizontal and vertical ridge resorption, as compared to spontaneous healing?, and (b) which material(s) promotes bone formation in the extraction socket? MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were screened in duplicate for RCTs up to March 2021. Two independent authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Primary outcomes were ridge horizontal and vertical dimension changes and new bone formation into the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes and compare different grafting materials. RESULTS: Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets. Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage. According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation is effective in reducing both horizontal and vertical shrinkage, as compared to untreated sockets. NMA confirmed the consistency of XG for ridge dimension preservation, but several other materials and combinations like AG, Bio + AG, and AG + alloplasts, produced even better results than XG in clinical comparisons. Further evidence is needed to confirm the value of such alternatives to XG for alveolar ridge preservation. Bio + AG performed better than the other materials in preserving ridge dimension and platelet concentrates in new bone formation. However, alloplasts, xenografts, and AG + AP performed consistently good in majority of the clinical comparisons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: XG and Bio + AG demonstrated significantly better performance in minimizing post-extraction horizontal and vertical ridge dimension changes as compared with other grafting materials or with spontaneous healing, even if they presented the worst histological outcomes. Allografts and other materials or combinations (AG + AP) presented similar performances while spontaneous healing ranked last.

Recombinant Human Platelet-Derived Growth Factor: A Systematic Review of Clinical Findings in Oral Regenerative Procedures.

AIM: The use of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF) has received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of periodontal and orthopedic bone defects and dermal wound healing. Many studies have investigated its regenerative potential in a variety of other oral clinical indications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF) use for alveolar bone and/or soft tissue regeneration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Comprehensive electronic and manual literature searches according to the PRISMA guidelines were performed to identify interventional and observational studies evaluating the regenerative applications of rhPDGF-BB. The primary outcomes were the safety, efficacy, and overall clinical benefit of rhPDGF use in oral regenerative procedures. RESULTS: Sixty-three human clinical studies (mean ± SD follow-up period of 10.7 ± 3.3 mo) were included in the qualitative analysis. No serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 63 studies, aside from the postoperative complications routinely associated with surgical therapy. Use of rhPDGF was shown to be beneficial when combined with allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts (the latter tricalcium phosphate [ß-TCP]) for the treatment of periodontal defects and gingival recession. The use of rhPDGF also led to favorable clinical outcomes when combined with allografts or xenografts for guided bone regeneration (GBR) and alveolar ridge preservation. While favorable clinical results support the use of the combination of rhPDGF plus allograft or xenograft for GBR, ARP, and sinus floor augmentation, current data support the use of rhPDGF and alloplasts (e.g., ß-TCP) only in periodontal defects and gingival recession. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the clinical evidence, rhPDGF is safe and provides clinical benefits when used in combination with bone allografts, xenograft, or ß-TCP for the treatment of intrabony and furcation periodontal defects and gingival recession or when used with allografts or xenograft for GBR and ARP (PROSPERO CRD42020142446). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Clinicians should be aware that rhPDGF is a safe and effective approach for the treatment of intrabony and furcation periodontal defects and gingival recession or when used with allografts or xenograft for bone regeneration and alveolar ridge preservation. With consideration of cost and patient preference, this result could lead to more appropriate therapeutic decisions.

Lack of Clinical Benefit of Implantoplasty to Improve Implant Survival Rate.

The objective of this study was to compare postsurgical outcomes of resective treatment for peri-implantitis with and without implant surface modification (implantoplasty [IP]). This was accomplished by a retrospective analysis with data from patients with ≥1 implant who were surgically treated for peri-implantitis by resective therapy. Patients were divided into 2 groups regarding treatment approach: IP (test) and no IP (control). Retrospective data were obtained after implant placement (T0) and the day of peri-implantitis surgical treatment (T1). Patients were then recalled (≥1 y after T1) for clinical and radiographic examination (T2). The findings were conclusive. A total of 41 patients (68 implants; mean ± SD follow-up, 41.6 ± 24.4 mo) were included in this study. The survival rate at the implant level was 90% in the test group and 81.6% in the control group (P > 0.05). Multilevel regression analysis showed that the probability of implant failure was influenced by marginal bone loss (MBL) at T1 and not surgical modality. For example, peri-implantitis defects ≥50% and 25% to 50% MBL were 18.6 and 8.86 times more likely to lose the implant, respectively, when compared with <25% MBL. Nonetheless, MBL changes were similar in the test and control groups (P = 0.592). Similarly, changes in bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, and suppuration at T2 did not differ between groups (P > 0.05). Multilevel regression analysis indicated that clinical improvement of these parameters was influenced by the number of supportive peri-implant therapy visits (P < 0.01). The results demonstrate little difference between the procedures. Regardless of the implant surface modification (IP) being performed or not, the survival rate of implants treated for peri-implantitis was primarily influenced by the amount of bone loss at the time of treatment. Other clinical parameters (MBL, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were influenced by the frequency of supportive peri-implant therapy visits and not by the IP procedure (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04259840).

Effects of grammar facilitation on the phonological performance of children with speech and language impairments.

Although there is a great deal of evidence for a significant developmental relationship between grammar and phonology, the nature of this relationship and its implications for the intervention of children with impairments in both grammar and phonology are unclear. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether two approaches to grammar facilitation that placed no emphasis on phonology would have indirect effects on the phonological output of preschoolers with speech and language impairments. All 26 subjects, ages 44-70 months, had impairments both in grammar and in phonology. Ten subjects took part in a clinician-administered intervention program, eight subjects received a similar intervention program implemented by their parents, and eight children served as delayed intervention controls (Fey, Cleave, Long, & Hughes, 1993). The results indicated that despite a strong effect for the intervention on the children's grammatical output, there were no indirect effects on the subjects' phonological production. It is concluded that despite a close relationship between the development of grammar and phonology, language intervention approaches for children approximately 4 to 6 years of age should address phonological problems directly if significant effects on phonology are to be expected.