Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology allows the production of an individualized 3D object based on a material of choice, a specific computer-aided design and precise manufacturing. Developments in digital technology, smart biomaterials and advanced cell culturing, combined with 3D printing, provide promising grounds for patient-tailored treatments. In dentistry, the “digital workflow” comprising intraoral scanning for data acquisition, object design and 3D printing, is already in use for manufacturing of surgical guides, dental models and reconstructions. 3D printing, however, remains un-investigated for oral mucosa/gingiva. This scoping literature review provides an overview of the 3D printing technology and its applications in regenerative medicine to then describe 3D printing in dentistry for the production of surgical guides, educational models and the biological reconstructions of periodontal tissues from laboratory to a clinical case. The biomaterials suitable for oral soft tissues printing are outlined. The current treatments and their limitations for oral soft tissue regeneration are presented, including “off the shelf” products and the blood concentrate (PRF). Finally, tissue engineered gingival equivalents are described as the basis for future 3D-printed oral soft tissue constructs. The existing knowledge exploring different approaches could be applied to produce patient-tailored 3D-printed oral soft tissue graft with an appropriate inner architecture and outer shape, leading to a functional as well as aesthetically satisfying outcome.

Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces. An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles. Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar. Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.

The purposes of the present study were 1) to systematically review the literature on the surgical non-regenerative treatments of peri-implantitis and 2) to determine a predictable therapeutic option for the clinical management of peri-implantitis lesions. The study search was performed on primary database MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2005 until 2016. Sequential screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BOP) and/or radiologic marginal bone level changes after peri-implantitis surgical non-regenerative treatment at 6-month follow-up or longer were included accordingly PRISMA guidelines. The first electronic and hand search resulted in 765 citations. From 16 full-text articles reviewed, 6 were included in this systematic review. Surgical non-regenerative methods were found to be efficient in reducing clinical parameters. BOP and PD values were significantly decreased following implantoplasty and systematic administration of antibacterials, but not after local application of chemical compounds or diode laser. Similarly, significant improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters was found only after implantoplasty compared with resective surgery alone. We found significant heterogeneity in study designs and treatments provided among the pooled studies. All of the studies revealed an unclear or high risk of bias. Surgical non-regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was found to be effective to reduce the soft tissue inflammation and decrease probing depth. More randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of surgical non-regenerative therapy of peri-implantitis.