Background and objectives: Periodontitis is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory infectious disease in which an infection is necessary, but not sufficient, for development of the condition. Individual susceptibility strictly linked to the immune and inflammatory response of the organism must also be present. Low-grade inflammation (LGI) is a systemic status of chronic sub-clinical production of inflammatory factors. This condition represents a risk factor for many chronic diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease and cancer. This scoping review aims to clarify, summarize and disseminate current knowledge on the possible link between periodontitis, LGI and systemic health. Materials and Methods: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were followed. An ad-hoc created keyword string was used to search the electronic databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. A hand search of specialized journals and their reference lists was also performed. Results: 14 studies that respected eligibility criteria were selected and analyzed. There is emerging evidence of strong links between periodontitis, LGI and systemic health. On the one hand, periodontitis influences the systemic status of LGI and on the other hand, the systemic production of inflammatory factors affects periodontitis with a bidirectional connection. Conclusions: LGI and the subsequent onset of a systemic inflammatory phenotype can be considered the common substrate of many chronic inflammatory diseases including periodontitis, with multiple mutual connections between them. Understanding of the biological principles and mechanisms underlying such a complex interrelationship could lead to significant improvements in the field of personalized diagnostics and therapeutic protocols.

Several factors affect dental implant osseointegration, including surgical issues, bone quality and quantity, and host-related factors, such as patients’ nutritional status. Many micronutrients might play a key role in dental implant osseointegration by influencing some alveolar bone parameters, such as healing of the alveolus after tooth extraction. This scoping review aims to summarize the role of dietary supplements in optimizing osseointegration after implant insertion surgery. A technical expert panel (TEP) of 11 medical specialists with expertise in oral surgery, bone metabolism, nutrition, and orthopedic surgery performed the review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) model. The TEP identified micronutrients from the “European Union (EU) Register of nutrition and health claims made on foods” that have a relationship with bone and tooth health, and planned a PubMed search, selecting micronutrients previously identified as MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and adding to each of them the words “dental implants” and “osseointegration”. The TEP identified 19 studies concerning vitamin D, magnesium, resveratrol, vitamin C, a mixture of calcium, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin D, and synthetic bone mineral. However, several micronutrients are non-authorized by the “EU Register on nutrition and health claims” for improving bone and/or tooth health. Our scoping review suggests a limited role of nutraceuticals in promoting osseointegration of dental implants, although, in some cases, such as for vitamin D deficiency, there is a clear link among their deficit, reduced osseointegration, and early implant failure, thus requiring an adequate supplementation.

Aim: To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.Materials and Methods: Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.Results: Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5‐year survival rates for ≤6‐mm and ≥10‐mm implants in non‐augmented bone and full‐mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6‐mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5‐year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4‐mm and 5‐mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short‐ and long‐term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.Conclusions: Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5‐year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10‐mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full‐arch rehabilitation, and 6‐mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Poly-d,l-lactic acid (PDLLA) has been proposed in dentistry for regenerative procedures in the form of membranes, screws, and pins. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of bone augmentation techniques using PDLLA devices. A literature search was carried out by two independent and calibrated reviewers. All interventional and observational studies assessing the efficacy of bone augmentation techniques using PDLLA devices were included. Six studies were included. The relevant variability of design and methods impeded any qualitative or quantitative comparison. Ease of handling, absence of a re-entry phase, moldability of foils, and good soft-tissue response were appreciated characteristics of PDLLA devices. Some drawbacks such as the risk of membrane exposition, a prolonged adsorbability, and a tendency to a fibrous encapsulation of the PDLLA devices have been described, although the clinical significance of these findings is unclear. Clinical data about PDLLA devices for bone regeneration are very scarce and heterogenous. Well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing the use of PDLLA foils and pins with conventional membranes for bone regeneration are strongly encouraged in order to understand the real clinical benefits/drawbacks of this technique.

Aim: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of implant therapy in patients with and without a history of periodontitis in terms of implant loss, peri‐implant marginal bone loss (MBL), and occurrence of peri‐implant diseases. Methods: The protocol of the present meta‐analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021264980). An electronic search was conducted up to April 2024. All prospective cohort studies reporting implant loss, MBL, and occurrence of peri‐implant diseases in both patients with a history of periodontitis (HP) and patients with no history of periodontitis (NHP) after at least 36‐month follow‐up were included. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and the quality of the evidence was also assessed. A meta‐analysis was performed on the selected outcomes at the available follow‐up time points. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow‐up time, rate of progression and severity of periodontitis, and implant surface characteristics. Publication bias was evaluated using the Funnel plot and Egger's test. Results: From 13 761 initial records, 14 studies (17 articles) were finally included. Eight studies had a low risk of bias level, and six had a medium risk of bias level. Meta‐analysis showed that HP patients had a significantly greater risk for implant loss (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.28–2.40; p = 0.0005; I ² = 0%), MBL (MD: 0.41 mm; 95% CI 0.19, 0.63; p = 0.0002; I ² = 54%), and peri‐implantitis (3.24; 95% CI: 1.58–6.64; p = 0.001; I ² = 57%) compared to NHP, whereas no significant intergroup difference for peri‐implant mucositis was found. Subgroup analyses revealed a particularly greater risk for implant loss for HP patients over a ≥ 10‐year follow‐up (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.06–3.85; p = 0.03; I ² = 0%) and for patients with a history of grade C (formerly aggressive) periodontitis (HR: 6.16; 95% CI: 2.53–15.01; p < 0.0001; I ² = 0%). A greater risk for implant loss for stages III–IV (severe) periodontitis, and implants with rough surfaces was also found. Conclusions: Within the limits of heterogeneous case definitions and methods of assessment, a history of periodontitis has been proved to significantly increase the risk for implant loss, particularly at long follow‐up (≥ 10 years) and in case of rapidly progressive forms (grade C), and for MBL and peri‐implantitis.

Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyse the clinical performance of short compared to longer implants inserted in sites without the need for bone augmentation. Methods: The protocol of the present PRISMA-driven meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021264781). Electronic and manual searches were performed up to January 2022. All Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing short (≤6 mm) to longer (≥8.5 mm) implants placed in non-atrophic and non-augmented sites were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RoB 2) and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A meta-analysis was performed on implant survival rate, marginal bone level change (MBLc), and technical and biological complications at the available follow-up time points. The power of the meta-analytic findings was determined by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: From 1485 initial records, 13 articles were finally included. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between short and long implant at any follow-up (moderate quality of evidence). Significantly more bone loss for long implants at 1 and 5 years from implant placement and more technical complications with short implants at 10 years were found. No other significant inter-group differences in terms of MBLc and biological complications were detected. Conclusions: Moderate evidence exists suggesting that short implants perform as well as longer ones in the rehabilitation of edentulous sites without the need for bone augmentation. Further long-term, well-designed RCTs, however, are still needed to provide specific evidence-based clinical recommendations for an extended use of short implants in non-atrophic sites.