This observational study aimed to: (i) assess the presence of periodontal disease among patients requiring aortic valve replacement; (ii) investigate the presence of oral pathogens in aortic valve specimens and compare them with the microorganisms detected in the oral cavity. Twenty-six patients (15 men and 11 women) were scheduled to be visited the day before the cardiac surgery: periodontal conditions were accurately registered through clinical and radiographic examinations; dental plaque or salivary samples were collected. Valve specimens were collected during surgical aortic valve replacement and analyzed for pathogens detection through microbiological 16SrRna gene sequencing. Bacteria found in plaque samples and valve specimens were assessed according to oral and periodontal conditions. A qualitative comparison between oral and cardiac profiles of the microorganisms detected was performed. The overall number of patients examined for soft tissues conditions was 19, as 7 patients were edentulous. Twelve and three individuals, respectively, presented moderate and severe periodontitis. Nine valves were found to be positive for the presence of oral and periodontopathic bacterial DNA. The microbial species found in valve samples of patients with periodontitis suggest that the presence of these microorganisms in valvular tissue seems to be not coincidental.

Background: Short and ultra‐short implants represent a predictable treatment, in terms of implant survival, with patients presenting insufficient available bone volumes. Moreover, single crown restorations represent a gold standard in terms of oral hygiene.Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss, and peri‐implant complications in 333 locking‐taper short and ultra‐short implants.Materials and Methods: Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 142 patients. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 5‐year recall appointments.Results: All implants placed consisted of 8.0‐, 6.0‐, and 5.0‐mm length, 38.14%, 34.53%, and 27.33%, respectively. Three hundred thirty‐two implants (one early failure) were rehabilitated with single crowns in 141 patients. In 45.48% of the implants the crown‐to‐implant ratio was ≥2, with a mean value of 1.94. Overall implant‐based survival after 5 years of follow‐up was 96.10%: 96.85%, 95.65%, and 95.60% for 8.0‐, 6.0‐, and 5.0‐mm length implants, respectively (p = 0.82). Overall patient‐based survival was 91.55%. Regarding crestal bone level variations, average crestal bone loss and apical shift of the “first bone‐to‐implant contact point” position were 0.69 and 0.01 mm, respectively. Setting the threshold for excessive bone loss at 1 mm, during the time interval from loading to follow‐up, 28 implants experienced loss of supporting bone greater than 1 mm: 19 of them (67.85%) were surgically treated with a codified surgical regenerative protocol. After 60 months, a peri‐implantitis prevalence of 5.94% was reported, with an overall implant success of 94.06%: 95.93%, 92.73%, and 93.10% for 8.0‐, 6.0‐, and 5.0‐mm length implants, respectively (p = 0.55).Conclusion: Long‐term outcomes suggest that short and ultra‐short locking‐taper implants can be successfully restored with single crowns in the posterior area of the maxilla and mandible.

Periodontal healing after third molars extraction seems to be influenced by the choice of different flap techniques. The purpose of the present study was to assess the clinical condition of adjacent first and second molar sites, after the extraction of lower third molars, performed through different flap designs. Eighty patients, aged between 14 and 30 years, were analyzed for periodontal parameters of VPI, PPD, and CAL, pre-operatively (T0), after 15 days (T1), after 1 month (T2), and after 2 months (T3) from extraction. Techniques performed were trapezoidal flap (TRAP), marginal flap (MARG), flap with papilla detachment (DETP), and flap with papilla decapitation (DEC). No significant differences were found between the four flaps at each observation time and considering the interval between T0 and T3, for VPI, PPD at first molar site, PPD at second molar site, and CAL at second molar site. Significant variations for CAL were registered, for each flap, between T0 and T3, in all cases for buccal site, in three cases for buccal-distal site. After 2 months of follow-up, no strong evidence can be assumed for or against the use of a particular flap design for the extraction of lower third molars.

Background: Short and ultra‐short implants implants supporting single crowns seem to demonstrate high percentages of survival and stable marginal bone levels at a mid‐term follow‐up. Nevertheless, insurgence of peri‐implant complications still represents a critical issue, especially for patients with history of periodontitis.Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri‐implant complications in 333 short and ultra‐short implants, placed in periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis.Materials and Methods: Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 142 patients with (PP) and without (NPP) a history of periodontitis. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 5‐year recall appointments.Results: Implants respectively placed in PP and NPP were: 35.68% and 42.50% in 8.0 mm‐length group, 33.33% and 36.67% in 6.0 mm‐length group, and 30.99% and 20.83% in 5.0 mm‐length group. Implant‐based survival after 5 years of follow‐up was 95.77% for PP and 96.67% for NPP (p = 0.77). Regarding crestal bone level variations, average crestal bone loss was statistically different (p = 0.04) among PP (0.74 mm) and NPP (0.61 mm). Implants presenting signs of mucositis were 6.86% in PP and 7.76% in NPP (p = 0.76). Setting the threshold for excessive bone loss at 1 mm after 60 months, peri‐implantitis prevalence was 7.84% in PP and 2.59% in NPP (p = 0.08). Overall implant success was 92.16% and 97.41%, respectively, for PP and NPP.Conclusions: Under strict maintenance program, five‐year outcomes suggest that short and ultra‐short locking‐taper implants can be successfully restored with single crowns in the posterior jaws both in PP and NPP.

Peri-implant infections, in the absence of adequate treatment, can finally lead to premature loss of the implant. Among targeted protocols recently proposed for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects, and in the case of short implants, reconstructive surgery represents a recommended option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes, in terms of maintenance, of a reconstructive treatment for peri-implantitis in locking-taper plateau-design single-crown implants, followed for 5 years after surgery. A retrospective evaluation was conducted in 20 patients treated with access flap surgery, concomitant chemical and mechanical surface decontamination, and bone grafting (using a self-hardening mixture of bone substitutes and biphasic calcium sulfate without the use of membranes). Of the 21 implants assessed, 9 were 8 mm-length, and 12 were 6 mm-length. Implant loss and treatment success were, respectively, 0% and 80.95% after 5 years from surgery. All parameters related to bone levels and soft tissue conditions significantly improved after 3 years and remained stable at the 5-year follow-up. The proposed protocol, followed by an effective supporting periodontal therapy, demonstrated the maintenance of the function of all implants, providing adequate stability during the healing process after surgery and limiting the onset of disease recurrence.

Background. Transparent aligners are recently introduced orthodontic devices considered promising for the improvement of oral health conditions, in terms of faster treatment times and enhanced comfort, especially if compared with traditional fixed orthodontic therapy. This systematic review aimed to evaluate at-home protocols for proper oral hygiene and aligners cleaning during orthodontic treatment. Methods. A search was conducted using the following four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. The systematic review (registered as CRD 42024562215) followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and included prospective studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and in vivo and ex vivo studies; they had to assess treatment with invisible orthodontics compared to treatment with fixed orthodontics, home oral hygiene, or aligner disinfection protocols. The evidence in the studies was evaluated for risk of bias using the RoB-2 (for RCTs and randomized crossover studies) and ROBINS-I tools (for observational studies). Results. Eleven studies were included in this systematic review: four RCTs, four crossover studies, and three cross-sectional observational studies. Seven studies considered patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, whereas four examined orthodontic aligners. The cleaning protocols of the aligners were evaluated based on the analysis of residual biofilm on the thermoplastic surfaces. Studies included were characterized by a low level of certainty, thus further evidence is needed. Conclusions. The most effective protocols entailed a combination of mechanical and chemical agents, suggesting that it is fundamental for patients undergoing aligner treatment to focus on individually tailored home oral hygiene protocols.