Background: Bone regeneration procedures represent a major challenge in oral surgery. This study aimed to evaluate a composite PRF/particulate xenograft in guided bone regeneration. Methods: Edentulous patients with horizontal ridge deficiencies in the anterior maxilla and candidates to an immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitation were included. Horizontal linear measurements indicating bone gain were assessed from computer beam computer tomography (CBCT) scans obtained at pre-surgery, post-surgery, and the 12-month follow-up. Mean bone values were presented as mean ± 95% CI. Non-parametric tests were used as appropriate, and the effect size was calculated with Cohen’s d repeated measures. Results: Eighteen patients were rehabilitated with 72 implants. The mean horizontal bone width was 4.47 [4.13–4.80] mm pre-surgically, 9.25 [8.76–9.75] mm post-surgically, and 7.71 [7.28–8.14] mm 12 months after. Conclusions: PRF associated with a xenograft seems to promote an effective horizontal bone gain. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the benefits of this surgical approach.

This retrospective study analyzed implant survival of immediate implant-supported fixed complete denture (IFCD) treatment options (TOs) based on the level of alveolar atrophy (CC). Records of 882 patients receiving a total of 6042 implants at one private referral clinic between 2004 and 2020 were considered. The mean follow-up period was 3.8 ± 2.7 years. Cumulative implant survival rates (CSRs) were analyzed as a function of CCs and TOs according to Mantel-Haenszel and Mantel-Cox. Hazard risk ratios for implant loss were compared using Cox regression. Confounding factors were identified using mixed Cox regression models. The 2- and 5-year CSRs were 98.2% and 97.9%, respectively. Maxillary 2- and 5-year CSRs were lower (97.7% and 97.3%) compared to mandibular CSRs (99.8% and 98.6%) (p = 0.030 and 0.0020, respectively). The CC did not influence CSRs of IFCDs in the mandible (p = 0.1483 and 0.3014, respectively) but only in the maxilla (p = 0.0147 and 0.0111), where CSRs decreased with increasing atrophy. TOs did not statistically differ in terms of survival rate for a given level of alveolar atrophy. The adaption of IFCD treatments to the level of atrophy and patient-specific risk factors can result in high CSRs, even at different levels of bone atrophy.

Background: The potential impact of the number of implants (four vs. six) on the implant survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) remains inconclusive and subject to ongoing debate. This study compared the implant survival of immediately loaded four vs. six IFCDs, delivered using a patient-centered systematic treatment plan, in a large patient cohort assessed with consistent diagnostic methodology and comprehensive longitudinal follow-up. Methods: This retrospective study included records of 943 patients receiving 5989 implants with an average follow-up of 5.0 ± 3.2 (range 0–17) years delivered using a systematic clinical decision support system (CDSS) based on a defined alveolar atrophy classification (CC). Implant survival was analyzed considering predictor variables comprising treatment and anatomic and systemic health-related factors at the overall, maxillary, and mandibular levels using Kaplan–Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and single-predictor and multilevel Cox proportional hazard analysis derived from causal direct acyclic graph methodologies. Results: The 2- and 5-year cumulative survival rates (CSRs) of four and six IFCDs were comparable (2-year: 98.6% vs. 98.4%, p = 0.362; 5-year: 98.8%, 98.7% p = 0.346). The differences between four and six IFCDs were more pronounced at the maxillary levels, specifically after 2 years (97.7% vs. 98.6% p = 0.084), and at the mandibular level after 5 years (98.6% vs. 99.4%, p = 0.136.). Multilevel Cox proportional hazard models at overall and jaw levels adjusted for confounding factors indicated that implant loss was correlated to jaw type and age at overall and age alone at the mandibular level. Alveolar atrophy (CC) defined within the adopted CDSS was not robustly associated with implant loss. Conclusions: Under the guidance of a systematically applied patient-centered CDSS, four and six IFCDs demonstrated high and comparable mid-to-long-term implant survival rates irrespective of the level of analysis or statistical model used to adjust for confounding factors. Prosthetic and technical complications were not evaluated and were, therefore, beyond the scope of this study.