Background: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) can successfully reduce volumetric ridge changes. However, there is still no consensus on what technique is the most advantageous for each specific clinical scenario. Hence, the aim of the present paper was to provide a treatment decision tree to guide the choice of predictable ARP procedures based on extraction socket buccal bone morphology and integrity. Material and Methods: Three socket types (ST) are proposed and discussed based on buccal bone morphology (intact, dehiscence or fenestration). Results: A decision tree for ARP was developed in order to merge ST classification with suitable treatment modalities. In the decision tree, the issue of when to allow unassisted healing or ARP was discussed. Described methods included bone grafting and collagen plug, and absorbable membrane or non-resorbable membrane, with or without flap elevation. Conclusion: A decision tree for ARP procedures was provided to guide clinicians towards the most conservative and predictable treatment approach based on remaining socket anatomical structures after extraction.

For the first time, the clinical application of the first CE registered magnesium membrane is reported. Due to the material characteristics of magnesium metal, new treatment methodologies become possible. This has led to the development of a new technique: the magnesium membrane shield technique, used to rebuild the buccal or palatal walls of compromised extraction sockets. Four clinical cases are reported, demonstrating the handling options of this new technique for providing a successful regenerative outcome. Using the technique, immediate implant placement is possible with a provisional implant in the aesthetic zone. It can also be used for rebuilding both the buccal and palatal walls simultaneously. For instances where additional mechanical support is required, the membrane can be bent into a double layer, which additionally provides a rounder edge for interfacing with the soft tissue. In all reported clinical cases, there was a good bone tissue regeneration and soft tissue healing. In some instances, the new bone had formed a thick cortical bone visible in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiographs of the regenerated sites, which is known to be remodeled in the post treatment period. Overall, the magnesium membrane shield technique is presented as an alternative treatment option for compromised extraction sockets.

To date, there are no bioresorbable alternatives to non-resorbable and volume-stable membranes in the field of dentistry for guided bone or tissue regeneration (GBR/GTR). Even magnesium (Mg) has been shown to constitute a favorable biomaterial for the development of stabilizing structures. However, it has been described that it is necessary to prevent premature degradation to ensure both the functionality and the biocompatibility of such Mg implants. Different coating strategies have already been developed, but most of them did not provide the desired functionality. The present study analyses a new approach based on ion implantation (II) with PVD coating for the passivation of a newly developed Mg membrane for GBR/GTR procedures. To demonstrate comprehensive biocompatibility and successful passivation of the Mg membranes, untreated Mg (MG) and coated Mg (MG-Co) were investigated in vitro and in vivo. Thereby a collagen membrane with an already shown biocompatibility was used as control material. All investigations were performed according to EN ISO 10993 regulations. The in vitro results showed that both the untreated and PVD-coated membranes were not cytocompatible. However, both membrane types fulfilled the requirements for in vivo biocompatibility. Interestingly, the PVD coating did not have an influence on the gas cavity formation compared to the uncoated membrane, but it induced lower numbers of anti-inflammatory macrophages in comparison to the pure Mg membrane and the collagen membrane. In contrast, the pure Mg membrane provoked an immune response that was fully comparable to the collagen membrane. Altogether, this study shows that pure magnesium membranes represent a promising alternative compared to the nonresorbable volume-stable materials for GBR/GTR therapy.

Background: Peri‐implantitis (PI) is a growing concern in the dental community worldwide. The study aimed to compare U.S. versus European periodontists’ considerations of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management of PI.Methods: A total of 393 periodontists from the United States and 100 periodontists from Europe (Germany, Greece, Netherlands) responded to anonymous surveys electronically or by mail.Results: Compared to U.S. periodontists, European respondents were younger, more likely to be female and placed fewer implants per month (9.12 vs 13.90; P = 0.003). Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, and smoking were considered as very important risk factors by both groups (rated > 4 on 5‐point scale). European periodontists rated poor oral hygiene (4.64 vs 4.45; P = 0.005) and history of periodontitis (4.36 vs 4.10; P = 0.006) as more important and implant surface (2.91 vs 3.18; P = 0.023), occlusion (2.80 vs 3.75; P < 0.001) and presence of keratinized tissue (3.27 vs 3.77; P < 0.001) as less important than did U.S. periodontists. Both groups rated clinical probing, radiographic bone loss, and presence of bleeding and suppuration as rather important diagnostic criteria. They rated implant exposure/mucosal recession as relatively less important with U.S. periodontists giving higher importance ratings than European periodontists (3.99 vs 3.54; P = 0.001). Both groups nearly always used patient education, plaque control and mechanical debridement when treating PI. U.S. periodontists were more likely to use antibiotics (3.88 vs 3.07; P < 0.001), lasers (2.11 vs 1.68; P = 0.005), allograft (3.39 vs 2.14; P < 0.001) and regenerative approaches (3.57 vs 2.56; P < 0.001), but less likely to use resective surgery (3.09 vs 3.53; P < 0.001) than European periodontists.Conclusions: U.S. and European periodontists’ considerations concerning risk factors, diagnosis and management of PI were evidence‐based. Identified differences between the two groups can inform future educational efforts.

This narrative review aims to discuss the incorporation of novel medical concepts and tools into dental practice, with the goal of improving early diagnosis and exploring new personalized treatment options for oral pathologies, such as caries and periodontitis. Preventative dental approaches concentrate on the timely detection of oral infections and the integration of biomarker analysis to recognize pathogenic changes at early stage of disease. Likewise, periodic monitoring after the treatment is relevant to ensure the balance in the oral biofilms and prevent relapse. Additionally, more attention has shifted towards the contributing factors to disease development, such as essential nutrients. Sufficient levels of vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc pre- and post-operatively are employed to boost immune function and reduce the risk of postoperative infections. Omega-3 fatty acids, melatonin, and antioxidants like vitamin E, which have anti-inflammatory properties, are utilized to help minimize excessive inflammation and promote faster recovery. The data presented in this manuscript emphasize the crucial integration of innovative healthcare concepts and tools into dental practices. By adopting a more holistic view of the patient, clinicians can tailor treatments to each individual's predispositions, lifestyle, and oral health conditions. This review also highlights the potential of salivary biomarkers and point-of-care technologies in enhancing early diagnostic accuracy and personalizing treatment. Bridging the gap between oral and systemic health is the most effective approach to improving patient quality of life. These findings underscore the importance of continued interdisciplinary collaboration in dentistry.