ABSTRACT
The objective of this systematic review was to identify the available scientific evidence on bone substitutes (BSs) compared with autogenous bone grafts (ABGs) for regeneration of horizontal bone resorption in the anterior maxillary alveolar process, aiming at rehabilitation with endosseous implants. This review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (2020) and registered in the database PROSPERO (CRD: 42017070574). The databases searched were PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, SCIENCE DIRECT, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CENTRAL COCHRANE, in the English language. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the study's quality and risk of bias. A total of 524 papers were found. After the selection process, 6 studies were selected for review. A total of 182 patients were followed for a period of 6 to 48 months. The mean age of patients was 46.46 years, and 152 implants were installed in the anterior region. Two studies achieved a reduced graft and implant failure rate, whereas the remaining 4 studies had no losses. It may be concluded that the use of ABGs and some BSs is a viable alternative for the rehabilitation with implants in individuals with anterior horizontal bone loss. However, additional randomized controlled trials are warranted due to the limited number of papers.
Subject(s)
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation , Bone Substitutes , Dental Implants , Humans , Middle Aged , Bone Substitutes/therapeutic use , Australia , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Bone TransplantationABSTRACT
This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membranes versus subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) in the coverage of Miller class I and II gingival recessions. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the quality of seven articles (Cohen's Kappa = 0.9) was evaluated using the Jadad scale. The MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were consulted, and manual searches were performed in the most popular periodontics journals. The studies included considered a total of 122 patients, 203 surgical fields on which SCTGs were used, and 205 surgical fields on which PRF was used. The parameters analyzed were probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and keratinized mucosa. The minimum follow-up period accepted was 6 months. A statistically significant difference between the SCTG and PRF groups was found only in the case of keratinized mucosa. However, gingival recession, clinical attachment level, and probing depth parameters in the PRF group were found to be statistically equal to those of the SCTG group (the gold standard) (p ≥0.05). PRF membranes were determined to be a promising alternative to autogenous gingival grafts in the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recessions.
