Background: The preservation of hard and soft tissue volume, partially lost after tooth removal, can potentially reduce the need for the more demanding augmentation procedures used in implant‐supported rehabilitation. The objective of this research study is to investigate the effect of filling with xenogeneic material the postextractive sockets of two surgical procedures (flapless versus flapped).Methods: In this prospective randomized clinical survey, two types of socket preservation were performed on two groups of patients: the control, treated via full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap, and the test, via a flapless procedure. Anatomic measurements and related outcome variables at the third month were analyzed using multiway analysis of variance. Multiple comparison tests, using Tukey honestly significant difference test, and appropriate pairwise comparison tests for independent samples were carried out.Results: Sixty‐four patients were treated, 32 for each of the two socket preservation procedures. Statistically significant differences were registered for the output variables — changes in width of keratinized gingiva, changes in bucco‐lingual width, and vertical bone changes at four sites — between the two socket preservation techniques, with P values of <0.001, <0.001, and 0.0105, respectively.Conclusions: A full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap gave significantly more negative results than that of the less‐demanding flapless procedure, with an increased width resorption of the postextraction site. Moreover, the increased value of the keratinized gingival width attested to the positive outcome of a flapless procedure in terms of soft tissue preservation and improvement. On the other hand, the flapped technique seemed to show less vertical bone resorption on the buccal aspect than the flapless technique.

Background: The alveolar ridge undergoes reabsorption and atrophy subsequent to tooth removal and thus exhibits a wide range of dimensional changes. Preservation of the alveolar crest after tooth extraction is essential to enhance the surgical site before implant fixture placement. The aim of this randomized clinical study is to investigate and compare the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant insertion, as well as the success rate and marginal bone loss for implants placed in the grafted sites versus those placed in naturally healed sites.Methods: Forty patients with ≥1 hopeless tooth were randomly allocated to: 1) a test group, receiving extraction and grafting corticocancellous porcine bone; and 2) a control group, receiving extraction without any graft. After 7 months of healing, implants were inserted in each of the sites. The implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with metal–ceramic rehabilitation. The follow‐up included evaluation of implant diameter and length, the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant placement, implant failure, and marginal bone level changes. All patients were followed over a 3‐year period.Results: One implant failed in the control group at the second stage of surgery (6 months after placement); one implant failed in the test group after 2 years of loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 3‐year follow‐up visit reached 95% for both groups. No statistically significant differences were detected for marginal bone changes between the two groups.Conclusions: It was concluded that implants placed into grafted extraction sockets exhibited a clinical performance similar to implants placed into non‐grafted sites in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, grafted sites allowed placement of larger implants and required less augmentation procedures at implant placement when compared to naturally healed sites.

Restorative procedures for caries affecting primary molars are a daily challenge for pediatric dentistry, and one of the main factors influencing the results of these restorative procedures is the choice of dental material used: bioactive materials were recently introduced, combining the strength of composites and the benefits of glass ionomers. The present study’s objective is to clinically evaluate the aesthetic, functional and biological properties of Activa™ Bioactive composite in approximal and occlusal carious lesions for 1 year using the FDI criteria for evaluating direct dental restorations. Forty-five children with occlusal or approximal caries in first or second primary molars were included in the study: the cavities were then randomized to be restored with either Activa BioActive or SDR Bulk-fill and evaluated over time according to Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Results showed that Activa BioActive composite has similar performance over time compared to Bulk-fill composite, for both functional and aesthetic properties. Thus, within the limitations of this study, including the short follow-up period, it can be concluded that bioactive materials might be the material of choice to restore primary molars. A longer follow-up period is desirable to confirm these findings.