Histologic Outcomes After Guided Bone Regeneration of Peri-implant Defects Comparing Individually Shaped Block Versus Particulate Bone Substitutes.

Peri-implant bone dehiscences were grafted either with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) block or with particulate DBBM, both covered with a collagen membrane and stabilized with resorbable pins. After 6 months, 17 biopsy samples were included for histologic assessment. Block and particulate DBBM rendered successful tissue integration. Particulate DBBM showed a median of 25.2% of new bone and 31.3% of bone substitute. In the block group, there was a median of 11.5% of new bone and 36.0% of bone substitute. When interpreting the discrepancy in new bone between the groups, the difference in the size of the augmented hard tissue needs to be taken into account.

Hard tissue changes after guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects comparing block versus particulate bone substitutes: 6-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether block bone substitute used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant defects leads to different thickness of the augmented hard tissue than particulate bone substitute. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 24 patients, 24 two-piece dental implants were placed >4 months after tooth extraction. Following random allocation, 12 peri-implant bone dehiscences were grafted with an individually shaped block of deproteinized bovine-derived bone mineral (DBBM) and 12 bone dehiscences with particulate DBBM. All the sites were covered with a collagen membrane stabilized with resorbable pins. Immediately after wound closure and after 6 months, the horizontal thickness (HT) of the augmented hard tissue was measured at the level of implant shoulder using cone beam-computed tomography. RESULTS: After wound closure, the median HT measured 3.35 mm (mean: 3.38) in the block group and 2.85 mm (mean: 2.73) in the particulate group. At 6 months, the median HT decreased to 2.90 mm (mean: 2.71) in the block group and to 0.2 mm (mean: 0.52) in the particulate group. This difference was statistically significant (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Block bone substitute used for GBR of peri-implant defects was superior to particulate bone substitute regarding the dimension of the augmented hard tissue after 6 months of healing.

The patient undergoing implant therapy. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015.

INTRODUCTION: The assignment for this working group was to update the existing knowledge regarding factors considered being of special relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. This included areas where conflicting opinions exists since long or recently has been expressed, like the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery and peri-implantitis. Also areas with growing interest and concern such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-economy was included in this review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature in the respective areas of interest (antibiotic prophylaxis, peri-implantitis, patient-reported outcome measurements and health-economic aspects) was searched using different strategies for the different papers. Search strategies ranged from a complex systematic review to systematic- and narrative reviews, depending on subject and available literature. All collected material was critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were subsequently presented for group analysis and discussion and plenum discussions and concensus approval. The selected areas were considered to be of key importance and relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. RESULTS: The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. The group's conclusions, identified knowledge gaps, directions for future research and concensus statements are presented in this article. The following reviews were available for group discussions and the foundation for subsequent plenary sessions: Lund B, Hultin M, Tranaeus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. (2015) Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. A complex systematic review. Renvert S & Quirynen M. (2015) Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Matthys C, Cosyn J. (2015) The current use of patient centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry. A systematic review. Beikler T & Flemmig T.F. (2015) Economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. A narrative review.