Objectives: The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the abutment width on early marginal bone loss (MBL).Material and Methods: A balanced, randomized, double‐blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms was conducted without a control group. The arms were “cylindrical” abutment and “concave” abutment. Eighty hexagonal internal connection implants, each with a diameter of 4 × 10 mm, were placed in healed mature bone. The main variable was the peri‐implant tissue stability, which was measured as MBL at 8 weeks and 6 months.Results: The final sample consisted of 77 implants that were placed in 25 patients. 38 (49.4%) were placed using the cylindrical abutment, and the other 39 (50.6%) were placed using the concave abutment. The early global MBL of −0.6 ± 0.7 mm in the cylindrical abutment group was significantly higher than it was in the concave abutment group, in which the early global MBL was −0.4 ± 0.6 mm (p = .030). The estimated effect size (ES) was negative for the cylindrical abutment (ES = −1.3730, CI −2.5919 to −0.1327; t‐value = −2.4893; p = .0139), therefore implying a loss of mean bone level, and it was positive for the concave abutment (ES = 2.8231; CI: 1.4379 to 4.2083; t‐value = 4.0957; p = .0002), therefore implying an increase in the average bone level.Conclusions: The concave abutments presented significantly less early MBL at 6 months post‐loading than classical cylindrical abutments did.

Despite the increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) patients, the clinical problem of predicting individual treatment response remains unanswered. Furthermore, the use of ineffective chemotherapeutic regimens should be avoided. Serum biomarker levels are being studied more and more for their ability to predict therapy response and aid in the development of personalized treatment regimens. This study aims to identify effective protein networks and biomarkers to predict response to NAC in HER2-positive BC patients through an exhaustive large-scale LC-MS/MS-based qualitative and quantitative proteomic profiling of serum samples from responders and non-responders. Serum samples from HER2-positive BC patients were collected before NAC and were processed by three methods (with and without nanoparticles). The qualitative analysis revealed differences in the proteomic profiles between responders and non-responders, mainly in proteins implicated in the complement and coagulation cascades and apolipoproteins. Qualitative analysis confirmed that three proteins (AFM, SERPINA1, APOD) were correlated with NAC resistance. In this study, we show that serum biomarker profiles can predict treatment response and outcome in the neoadjuvant setting. If these findings are further developed, they will be of significant clinical utility in the design of treatment regimens for individual BC patients.

Introduction: Gingival recession, characterized by the apical displacement of the gingival margin, presents challenges to oral health. This study compares the effectiveness of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) and the tunnel technique (TT) for treating gingival recessions. Methods: Bibliographical searches included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and the grey literature, with keywords “root coverage” “coronary advanced flap”, and “tunnel”. A systematic coreview was performed that included 26 studies evaluating root coverage, and 14 articles were included for the meta-analysis. Three groups were analyzed: Group 1 compared TT with connective tissue graft (CTG) versus CAF with CTG; Group 2 examined TT with CTG and/or other biomaterials versus TT with CTG alone; Group 3 compared TT with CAF, regardless of complementary biomaterials. Meta-analysis assessed mean root coverage (MRC), complete root coverage (CRC), and keratinized tissue gain (KTG). Results: In Group 1, TT with CTG demonstrated superior MRC compared with CAF with CTG (−8.68 CI95% −17.19 to −0.17; p = 0.0457). In Group 2, TT with CTG and/or other biomaterials showed similar MRC (4.17 CI95% −17.91 to 26.26; p = 0.7110) and CRC (0.37 CI95% −1.14 to 1.89; p = 0.6269) to TT with CTG alone, with variations in keratinized tissue gain. Group 3 indicated higher potential MRC for TT compared with CAF (5.73 CI95% −8.90 to 13.55; p = 0.685) but without statistically significant differences. Conclusions: This study suggests that TT with CTG might offer better root coverage than CAF with CTG; however, biomaterial selection requires consideration.

Objective: This study follows a 2‐year evaluation to verify marginal bone remodeling (MBR) trends associated with different abutment designs. Methods: A balanced, randomised, double‐blind clinical trial with two parallel experimental arms. 68 implants were placed in 9 men and 12 women, 48.5% using the straight abutment and 51.5% the concave abutment. The primary variable was peri‐implant tissue stability, measured by marginal bone loss (MBL) or gain (MBG) through digital radiology. Mixed linear regression models and Additive Generalized Additive Models were constructed to estimate MBR, simultaneously considering the variables abutment height, group, and time. Results: At 24 months, linear mixed‐effects regression models revealed that the concave abutment group exhibited significantly less MBL than the straight abutment group across mesial, distal, and average measurements ( p = 0.006–0.026). Significant interactions between abutment type and time at 8 weeks and 6 months suggest early and sustained benefits of the concave design. At 24 months, this effect remained significant except in the mesial model ( p = 0.072). Abutment height was positively associated with MBL, particularly in the straight group; however, in the concave group, greater height mitigated bone loss ( p < 0.01). Conclusion: Concave abutments demonstrated a potential advantage in reducing early marginal bone loss and promoting mid‐term bone stability compared to straight abutments. Their design may enhance soft tissue adaptation, contributing to improved peri‐implant bone preservation. While increased abutment height showed a protective effect in the concave group, these findings require confirmation. Further long‐term studies are warranted to validate these results and clarify their clinical relevance.