GBR (Guided Bone Regeneration) procedure is challenged by the risk of membrane exposure to the oral cavity and contamination. The barrier quality of these membranes serve as a mechanical block from bacterial penetration into the GBR site. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antibacterial effect of three commercial non-resorbable polytetrafluoroethylene membranes. (Two d-PTFE membranes and one double layer e-PTFE +d-PTFE membrane). A validated in vitro model with two bacterial species (Streptococcus sanguinis and Fusobacterium nucleatum) was used. Eight samples from membrane each were placed in a 96-well microtiter plate. The experimental and positive control groups were exposed to a bacterial suspension which involved one bacterial species in each plate. Bacterial growth was monitored spectrophotometrically at 650 nm for 24 h in temperature controlled microplate spectrophotometer under anaerobic conditions. One- Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Normal test and the Kruskal–Wallis test was used for the statistical analysis. As shown by the bacterial growth curves obtained from the spectrophotometer readings, all three membranes resulted in bacterial growth. We have not found a statistical difference in F. nucleatum growth between different membrane samples and the positive control group. However, S. sanguinis growth was reduced significantly in the presence of two membranes (CYTOPLAST TXT-200 and NeoGen^TM) when compared to the control (p < 0.01). The presence of Permamem^® had no significant influence on S. sanguinis growth. Some types of commercial non-resorbable PTFE membranes may have an impact on the growth dynamics of specific bacterial species.

Background and Objectives: Maintenance of a firm and long-term stable osseointegration is the primary goal of implant dentistry. Time is used to define implant failure characteristics. Early implant failure (EIF) occurs up to one year after loading. Recent studies indicated an association between proton pump inhibitors (PPI) therapy and failure of osseointegration. The present study assessed whether the use of PPIs is a risk factor to EIF. Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study including 687 patients and 2971 dental implants. The study group (PPIs users) comprised 17.3% (119) individuals and 18.7% (555) implants. The remaining cohort (82.7% (568) individuals and 81.3% (2416) implants) served as control. The information was taken from the patients’ files. The following information was collected: age, gender, physical status, systemic diseases, HbA1C values before and after implant-supported prosthesis delivery in cases of diabetes mellitus, smoking, implant location, number of implants per individual, bone augmentation, implant brand, length and width, and EIF. EIF was defined as implant removal within a period of up to 12 months from loading. Results: EIF in PPIs vs. non-PPIs users was 19.3% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.16) at patient level and 5.4% vs. 3.5% at implant level (p = 0.03). Univariate analysis yielded factors significantly associated with PPIs use, including older age, physical status of the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 3, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, cardiovascular accident (CVA), location (anterior mandible), shorter and narrower implants, and higher number of implants per individual. Multivariate analysis yielded statistically significant OR of 1.91; p = 0.01 for EIF following PPIs use and 2.3; p < 0.001 for location in anterior mandible. Conclusions: Patients and their healthcare providers are advised to carefully consider the potential risks of taking PPIs prior to dental implant surgery. Further research is needed to confirm these risks and elucidate systemic and local factors that may be involved in such outcomes.

Background: All-on-four protocols with tilted implants in the maxilla are used to rehabilitate the terminal dentition of the severe generalized periodontitis patients. Data on long-term biological complications are scarce. Methods: Eighty-four axial and forty-six tilted immediate implants have been placed in the extraction sockets of 23 patients according to a four–six implants protocol combined with ridge augmentation. Within 72 h, a provisional prosthesis was cemented to the implants; after 6 months, a cemented ceramic–metallic prosthesis was delivered. The patients were followed for up to 5 years. Results: The 5-year survival rate of the straight and tilted implants was 100% and 97.8, and the prosthetic one was 100%. Marginal bone loss (MBL) of the straight implants was 0.42 ± 0.67 and 0.59 ±1.01 mm on the mesial and distal sides; for the tilted, it was 0.37 ± 0.68 and 0.34 ±0.62 mm, and the differences were not statistically significant. Implant position, smoking, keratinized mucosal width, and cantilever did not affect MBL. Peri-implant mucositis involved 29.4% and 22.2% of the straight and tilted implants, respectively; peri-implantitis involved 5.8% and 4.4% of the straight and tilted implants, respectively, without statistical significance. Conclusions: This immediate loading protocol’s 5-year survival and success rates were high. No difference between the straight and tilted implants was found regarding survival, success rates, and MBL.

(1) Background: To assess the clinical outcome of coronally advanced flap combined with connective tissue graft for the treatment of orthodontic-associated Miller Class III gingival recession of the lower incisors. (2) Methods: This study included 15 patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment prior to development of recession. Measurements of recession depth, recession width, probing depth, and width of keratinized tissue were performed clinically immediately before surgery and after one year. In addition, digital measurements of recession depth, recession width, and root coverage esthetic score were performed on intraoral photographs. (3) Results: Significant reduction was observed for probing depth, recession depth, and recession width at one year, with significant increase in width of keratinized tissue. Mean root coverage was 83 ± 24% for recession depth, while complete root coverage was achieved in 10 out of 21 recessions (48%). The average root coverage esthetic score at 12 months was 7.1 ± 2.6. An interaction was found between initial recession depth and mean root coverage. (4) Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, our results confirm that combination of coronally advanced flap and connective tissue graft is effective in reducing post-orthodontic Miller Class III recessions of the mandibular incisors, even when the correction of the tooth malposition, is unattainable.

Background: Stress concentrated at an implant’s neck may affect bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The objective of this study was to evaluate four different implant neck designs using two different drilling protocols on the BIC. Methods: Ninety-six implants were inserted in 12 minipigs calvarium. Implants neck designs evaluated were: type 1–6 coronal flutes (CFs), 8 shallow microthreads (SMs); type 2–6 CFs,4 deep microthreads (DMs); type 3–4 DMs; type 4–2 CFs, 8 SMs. Two groups of forty-eight implants were inserted with a final drill diameter of 2.8 mm (DP1) or 3.2 mm (DP2). Animals were sacrificed after 1 and 3 months, total-BIC (t-BIC) and coronal-BIC (c-BIC) were evaluated by nondecalcified histomorphometry analysis. Results: At 1 month, t-BIC ranged from 85–91% without significant differences between implant types or drilling protocol. Flutes on the coronal aspect impaired the BIC at 3 m. c-BIC of implant types with 6 CFs was similar and significantly lower than that of implant types 3 and 4. c-BIC of implant type 4 with SMs was highest of all implant types after both healing periods. Conclusions: BIC was not affected by the drilling protocol. CFs significantly impaired the -BIC. Multiple SMs were associated with greater c-BIC.