Libri correalti

Background: Tooth autotransplantation is a reliable procedure with high long-term success and survival rates, showing many advantages over dental implants, particularly for young patients in craniofacial development. Nonetheless, insufficient bone availability at the recipient site is a key limitation. This study aims to establish the feasibility of tooth autotransplantation combined with staged or simultaneous bone regeneration to address complex cases. Material & Methods: Two young patients with missing teeth due to hypodontia or trauma, deemed unsuitable for dental implants, were treated. Both complex cases were addressed through autologous tooth autotransplantation, either in conjunction with simultaneous guided bone regeneration or into a previously regenerated crest. Results: Five-year follow-up for the autotransplanted cuspid and more than 20-year follow-up for the premolar revealed satisfactory results for both autotransplanted teeth. These teeth played pivotal roles in restoring both function and aesthetics in young patients. Additionally, tooth vitality was preserved throughout the follow-up period, with no complications noted. Conclusion: Tooth autotransplantation in combination with previous or simultaneous guided bone regeneration proved to be effective in restoring function and aesthetics in complex situations in young patients. Parole chiave: guided bone regeneration, impacted tooth, tooth autotransplantation

Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness of three different devices used in guided bone regeneration procedures for partially atrophic arches. Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms was conducted. The study evaluated titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE group), semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh (mesh group) and occlusive CAD/CAM titanium foil (foil group) in terms of surgical outcomes and complications as well as surgical times and surgeon satisfaction in 27 guided bone regeneration procedures, presenting results from 1 year post–implant placement. Results: Complications occurred in seven patients. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the occurrence of complications (P = 0.51), device exposure (P = 0.12) and implant failure (P = 0.650). Surgeon satisfaction varied significantly, with the PTFE group differing from the mesh (P = 0.003) and foil groups (P = 0.001), but not between meshes and foils (P = 0.172). Surgical times also differed significantly, with longer times for PTFE membranes compared to meshes (P = 0.001) and foils (P = 0.006), but with no difference between meshes and foils (P = 0.308). The mean reconstructed bone volume was 1269.55 ± 561.08 mm3, with no significant difference observed between the three groups (P = 0.815). There was also no significant difference for mean maximum height (6.72 mm, P = 0.867) and width (7.69 mm, P = 0.998). The mean marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant placement was 0.59 ± 0.27 mm. Conclusions: Although this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using different types of CAD/CAM devices, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is warranted to validate these findings. Parole chiave: CAD/CAM, dental implants, foil, guided bone regeneration, mesh The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: To establish consensus-driven guidelines that could support the clinical decision-making process for implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior atrophic maxilla and ultimately improve long-term treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: A total of 33 participants were enrolled (18 active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration and 15 international experts). Based on the available evidence, the development group discussed and proposed an initial list of 20 statements, which were later evalu-ated by all participants. After the forms were completed, the responses were sent for blinded ana-lysis. In most cases, when a consensus was not reached, the statements were rephrased and sent to the participants for another round of evaluation. Three rounds were planned. Results: After the first round of voting, participants came close to reaching a consensus on six statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other fourteen. Following this, nineteen statements were rephrased and sent to participants again for the second round of voting, after which a consensus was reached for six statements and almost reached for three statements, but no consensus was achieved for the other ten. All 13 statements upon which no consensus was reached were rephrased and included in the third round. After this round, a consensus was achieved for an additional nine statements and almost achieved for three statements, but no consensus was reached for the remaining statement. Conclusion: This Delphi consensus highlights the importance of accurate preoperative planning, taking into consideration the maxillomandibular relationship to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of the final restoration. Emphasis is placed on the role played by the sinus bony walls and floor in providing essential elements for bone formation, and on evaluation of bucco-palatal sinus width for choosing between lateral and transcrestal sinus floor elevation. Tilted and trans-sinus implants are considered viable options, whereas caution is advised when placing pterygoid implants. Zygomatic implants are seen as a potential option in specific cases, such as for completely edentulous elderly or oncological patients, for whom conventional alternatives are unsuitable. Parole chiave: diagnostic procedure, implant dentistry, lateral window technique, pterygoid implants, sinus floor elevation, transcrestal sinus floor elevation, zygomatic implants The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

Purpose: Guided bone regeneration is a widely used technique for the treatment of atrophic arches. A broad range of devices have been employed to achieve bone regeneration. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical and histological findings for a new titanium CAD/CAM device for guided bone regeneration, namely semi-occlusive titanium mesh. Materials and methods: Nine partially edentulous patients with vertical and/or horizontal bone defects underwent a guided bone regeneration procedure to enable implant placement. The device used as a barrier was a semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh with a laser sintered microperforated scaffold with a pore size of 0.3 mm, grafted with autogenous and xenogeneic bone in a ratio of 80:20. Eight months after guided bone regeneration, surgical and healing complications were evaluated and histological analyses of the regenerated bone were performed. Results: A total of 9 patients with 11 treated sites were enrolled. Two healing complications were recorded: one late exposure of the device and one early infection (18.18%). At 8 months, well-structured new regenerated trabecular bone with marrow spaces was mostly present. The percentage of newly formed bone was 30.37% ± 4.64%, that of marrow spaces was 56.43% ± 4.62%, that of residual xenogeneic material was 12.16% ± 0.49% and that of residual autogenous bone chips was 1.02% ± 0.14%. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, the results show that semi-occlusive titanium mesh could be used for vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation. Nevertheless, further follow-ups and clinical and histological studies are required. Parole chiave: CAD/CAM, guided bone regeneration, histology, preliminary results, titanium mesh The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

The aim of the present study was to generate an international and multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of implant protrusion into the maxillary sinuses and nasal fossae. A total of 31 experts participated, 23 of whom were experts in implantology (periodontologists, maxillofacial surgeons and implantologists), 6 were otolaryngologists and 2 were radiologists. All the participants were informed of the current scientific knowledge on the topic based on a systematic search of the literature. A list of statements was created and divided into three surveys: one for all participants, one for implant providers and radiologists and one for otolaryngologists and radiologists. A consensus was reached on 15 out of 17 statements. According to the participants, osseointegrated implants protruding radiographically into the maxillary sinus or nasal fossae require as much monitoring and maintenance as implants fully covered by bone. In the event of symptoms of sinusitis, collaboration between implant providers and otolaryngologists is required. Implant removal should be considered only after pharmacological and surgical management of sinusitis have failed. Parole chiave: consensus, dental implants, maxillary sinus, nasal fossae Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.

This retrospective study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes of simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant placement procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous and horizontally atrophic dental arches using resorbable membranes. A total of 49 patients were included, and 97 implants were placed. Patients were followed up for 3 to 7 years after loading. The data indicate that GBR with simultaneous implant placement and resorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice, and the data suggest that it could be better to horizontally reconstruct no more than 3 mm of bone in order to reduce the number of complications and to obtain stable results. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.

In everyday practice, surgeons have to deal with bone atrophy. These rehabilitations are even more complex in the posterior mandible, and it is still unclear in the literature which fixed rehabilitation option is best. The purpose of this article was to help oral surgeons to choose the proper and updated treatment for their atrophic patients. Posterior mandible bone atrophies were divided into four main groups depending on the bone height measured above the inferior alveolar nerve: (1) ≤ 4 mm; (2) > 4 mm ≤ 5 mm; (3) > 5 mm ≤ 6 mm; (4) > 6 mm < 7 mm. Different approaches were proposed for each group, considering patient expectations. If ≤ 4 mm of bone height was available, guided bone regeneration was used as the adequate approach. For bone heights > 4 mm and ≤ 6 mm, the “sandwich” technique and/or short implants were used, depending on esthetics. In cases with > 6 mm and < 7 mm above the mandibular canal, short implants might be the proper option. The authors’ clinical experience and the literature were considered in order to suggest a possible correct treatment decision based on the residual bone height in the posterior mandible.

This prospective longitudinal clinical trial aimed to evaluate the success of a bone-level implant with an integrated platform-switched connection by assessing peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone level. Twenty-six patients were treated in two different centers with implants placed in healed partially edentulous ridges. Implant success rate and marginal bone level were evaluated with photographs, radiographs, and clinical measurements, with a 6-month postloading follow-up. The esthetic appearance of the photographed periimplant soft tissue was evaluated at 6 months via the Pink Esthetic Score applied by two calibrated operators. All of the implants except for one placed in the mandible demonstrated successful osseointegration, resulting in a success rate of 97.8% at the 6-month follow-up. Compared to historical controls, no detectable differences in peri-implant marginal bone loss or esthetic outcome were seen.

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous atrophic arches. A total of 58 patients were included with a follow-up of 3 to 7 years after loading. Data seem to indicate that GBR with nonresorbable membranes can be a good clinical choice and suggest that it could be used to vertically reconstruct no more than 6 mm of bone in the posterior mandible. However, this technique remains difficult and requires expert surgeons.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term performance of anodized surface implants placed in native bone and followed-up for up to 17 years. Success and survival rates, prevalence of peri-implantitis, and the correlation between the presence of peri-implantitis and other clinical and demographic variables were calculated. After a mean follow-up time of 10.4 years (range: 5 to 17 years), 91.7% of 223 analyzed implants were still in function. Periimplantitis affected 63 implants (28.3%) in 26 patients (44%). Eleven implants with peri-implantitis (4.9%) failed. Within the limits of this retrospective analysis, anodized implants appear to be prone to peri-implantitis, mainly in the posterior mandible and in patients with unsatisfactory plaque control.