This review aimed to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them into new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). For methodological development, the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy was used for the focus question construction: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search key terms, combined with Boolean markers, were (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to the period 1998–2024 and the English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and included in the GF-MoR complexes, which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) health, (2) gingivitis, (3) peri-implant mucositis, (4) periodontitis, (5) peri-implantitis, and (6) necrotizing and molar–incisor (M-O) pattern periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found to be associated with a particular disease. A total of 381 articles were found: 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k = 0.92). Of these articles, nine were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k = 0.98). Most of the studies reported results for the health condition, periodontitis, and peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it became essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group could also be present in others, such as those observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red triangle). The second most observed bacteria were grouped in GF-MoR’s blue triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., which were present in five of the six groups. The third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey polygon (GF-MoR’s grey polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria to periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s health group had 58 species; GF-MoR’s gingivitis group presented 16 bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of necrotizing diseases and molar–incisor (M-I) pattern periodontitis, with seven bacteria. After observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all of them were found to be gram-negative. Groups 4 and 5 (periodontitis and peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes were presented, gathering bacteria data according to the condition found and including more bacteria than in Socransky’s complexes. Based on this understanding, this study could drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborations to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of bacterial clusters.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.

In full-arch rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed prostheses, using monolithic zirconia seems to have several advantages regarding function and esthetics. However, the current scientific evidence is still limited. Thus, the aim of this investigation was to systematically review the literature on monolithic zirconia restorations for full-arch rehabilitation, particularly pursuing the survival rate and mechanical and biological complications. This study’s protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022301799). The primary literature search was performed in PubMed/MedLine and Web of Science, and a manual search was performed (checking cross-references). The focused question was, “In an adult population with one or both edentulous arches (P), the oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed-monolithic zirconia (full arch) (I), compared with oral rehabilitation using fixed-metal-ceramic prosthesis on implants (C), did show superior clinical results (O) in a minimum follow-up of 1 year (T)?” Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Joana Briggs Institute tools were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed for the variable survival rate (%), applying the specific continuous moderator (follow-up). Data heterogeneity (I²) was assessed. From the initial search, 327 references were obtained. After eliminating duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria by reading the titles, abstracts, and full text, seven articles were included. All included articles were observational longitudinal retrospective studies, with a number of prostheses between 7 and 2039. The mean age was 60 years, and the mean follow-up was 49.7 months. They had mandibular, maxillary, or bimaxillary rehabilitations, always with screw-retained retention, with an average survival rate of 97.23%. The number of implants ranged between four and eight. The quality of the articles was over 70%, and the heterogeneity was considered low (I² = 28.64%). Within a mean follow-up of around four years, full-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia rehabilitations had a high survival rate and minimal complications.

Bruno Gomes dos Santos Martins, MSc/Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, DDS/Andr?a Gomes Martins, DDS/Rog?rio de Moraes Castilho, PhD/Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira Fernandes, PhD: The goal of this overview was to systematically verify the best available literature on surgical and nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis to determine evidence-based treatment protocols for peri-implantitis. Three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library/Evidence) were searched by two independent reviewers, including systematic reviews (SRs) that involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search was limited to articles between January 2014 to January 2021 with an English language restriction. In total, 437 articles were initially found, of which only 34 were selected for full-text reading. Nine SRs were included in this study, enrolling 59 different RCTs. Some studies investigated both surgical and nonsurgical techniques, while others focused on only one approach or the other. In total, six of the studies included nonsurgical techniques, and eight included surgical techniques (ie, augmentative, regenerative, and corrective/resective techniques). Nonsurgical interventions appeared to offer some degree of clinical improvements, especially in bleeding on probing levels, but they were not enough to fully treat peri-implantitis. Whereas surgical techniques seemed to be more effective in improving overall clinical parameters, especially probing depth, bleeding on probing, and to some extent, marginal bone level, no specific surgical technique or material (graft or membrane) had a clear advantage over others. Therefore, resective surgical and implantoplasty techniques demonstrated significant improvements in clinical parameters. Although surgical interventions are more indicated to treat peri-implantitis than nonsurgical procedures, the predictability is still a concern due to titanium particles scattered within the local tissue.

Objective: This integrative review aimed to identify studies comparing the periodontal health in patients wearing multibracket orthodontic appliances and clear aligners. Materials and methods: An integrative literature search was performed through different databases, PubMed/Medline, PMC, and the Cochrane Library. This work was submitted to a search strategy following the PICO method and included the focus question: “Could the chosen orthodontic appliance change significantly the oral hygiene of the patient, impairing the periodontal health?” This work included analytical and controlled studies on humans published between 2005 and 2020, in the English language, establishing a comparison of the periodontal status in patients undergoing orthodontic multibracket and clear aligners therapies. The main periodontal indexes assessed were plaque index (PI), pocket depth (PD), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Results: The electronic research displayed 386 articles on PMC, 106 on PubMed, and 40 on the Cochrane Library. After removal, just 25 articles were selected for full-text screening, but just eight studies were eligible for this integrative review. It was enumerated that 204 patients were treated with aligners and 294 with multibracket orthodontic appliances, mainly elastomeric ligated brackets. Only the plaque index displayed a significant difference between the two groups and general data obtained showed a better control for periodontal health in the clear aligners. Limitations such as age, malocclusion severity, therapeutic choice, and different time measure was observed. In addition, the oral hygiene instruction and follow-up by a professional were different, and the role of malocclusion was not present in the studies. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, better results for periodontal health were found in the clear aligners. Therefore, more studies are necessary to affirm that aligners are synonymous with better gingival conditions in comparison with multibracket appliances. Other variables such as oral hygiene instructions, motivation, and supportive treatment tend to be more prevalent than the type of appliance itself in the periodontal evaluation.