Based on the critical role of implant length and placement timing in treatment success, this study aimed to compare clinical outcomes (implant failure, marginal bone loss, biological and mechanical complications) between short implants (4–8 mm) versus long implants (≥ 8 mm) with sinus floor elevation, and between delayed versus immediate placement of long implants in the posterior maxilla. This network meta-analysis was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023495027). Adhering to PRISMA-NMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed eligible studies from January 2014 to November 2024 was conducted across major databases, such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. The main focus of this NMA was to determine the rate of implant failure, as well as to assess marginal bone loss and the occurrence of biological and mechanical complications related to the implants. Data from 17 studies, involving 1,076 patients and 1,751 implants, was collected and examined. Long implants have lower failure rates (OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.53, 3.00) and short dental implants showed a trend towards lower biological (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.19, 1.18) and mechanical (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.45, 1.94) complications rates, although this trend was not statistically significant. Additionally, compared to longer implants, short implants resulted in a significant reduction in marginal bone loss, regardless of whether long implants were immediately (MD=-0.17; 95%CI: -0.29, -0.05) or delayed (MD = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.05, 0.64) placed following sinus floor elevation. The analysis of cumulative ranking probabilities revealed that delayed placement of long implants with SFE demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing implant failure (73.9%). SIs were found to excel in reducing marginal bone loss (88.7%) and biological complications (88.2%%), while short implants with SFE proved to be the most effective in preventing mechanical complications (66.0%%). Short implants achieved comparable clinical outcomes to long implants with sinus floor elevation in posterior maxilla with limited vertical bone height. Given the limitations of the network meta-analysis and included studies, treatment selection should be individualized based on specific patient conditions.

As biodegradable medical implants, magnesium alloys have attracted great concerns due to their desirable biological and mechanical performances. Nevertheless, the overfast degradation rate of magnesium alloys makes it difficult to make full use of their potential in medical sciences. Therefore, it is a hot issue to control the degradation rate and functionalize the magnesium alloys via surface modifications. Herein, methacrylate gelatin (GelMA) hydrogel was adopted as coatings on the surface of WE43 magnesium alloys to control the degradation behaviors of magnesium alloys. Inspired by mussels, dopamine (DOPA) hydrochloride was adopted to modify GelMA to further functionalize the coatings. The compositions, swelling properties, degradation behaviors, and morphologies of samples were characterized by UV-Vis spectrophotometer, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscope (SEM), and immersion test. It was shown that GelMA-DOPA composites could be obtained and the swelling and degradation behaviors of magnesium alloys could be controlled by adjusting the compositions of GelMA and DOPA. Furthermore, the GelMA-DOPA hydrogel coatings can be tightly bonded to the Mg alloys.

Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) rigorously assessed the regenerative potential of autologous particulate dentin graft (ADG) in the context of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), comparatively analyzing its performance against particulate xenogeneic (XG), allogeneic (ALG), alloplastic (APG) grafts, and blood clot healing (BCH). Materials and methods: A comprehensive review was undertaken utilizing recognized databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Central Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database) from 2015 to 2024, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024572610). This NMA assessed radiographic parameters of alveolar ridges, measuring coronal width, buccal height, and lingual height, and evaluated new bone formation via histomorphometric analysis. Utilizing the random effects model to assess the efficacy of treatments, while the quality of the studies was evaluated using the ROB2 and GRADE criteria. Results: 25 randomized controlled trials involving 710 patients and 830 tooth extraction sites were conducted. Both ADG and XG significantly preserved alveolar ridge volume compared to BCH. Specifically, ADG (MD = 1.67; 95% CI: 0.81, 2.54, P < 0.001) and XG (MD = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.20, 1.65, P = 0.012) demonstrated superior preservation of coronal alveolar ridge width change, with ADG showing an advantage over XG (MD = -0.75; 95% CI: -1.45, -0.05, P = 0.035). Similarly, both ADG (MD = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.08, P = 0.004) and XG (MD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.04, P < 0.001) significantly maintained and buccal and lingual alveolar ridge height change compared to BCH. Conclusions: ADG effectively preserves alveolar ridge volume while demonstrating comparable new bone formation profiles with conventional bone graft substitutes.

The socket shield technique (SST) shows promising potential in esthetic dental implantation. Nonetheless, studies on its relative efficacy in comparison with other traditional implantation methods are limited. The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate SST, conventional immediate implant placement (IIP), nonimmediate implant placement with guided bone regeneration (NIIP-GBR), and nonimmediate implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation (NIIP-ARP) for optimal soft and hard tissue preservation and outcomes in the esthetic zone. The review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42024627077) and conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive systematic search was performed across the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for studies published from January 2015 to November 2024. The outcomes included pink esthetic score (PES), labial bone thickness (LBT) changes, marginal bone loss (MBL), and patient-reported esthetic outcomes (PROs). A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, with effect sizes calculated as weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Study quality and evidence certainty were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodologies. This network meta-analysis encompassed 19 studies, comprising 13 randomized controlled trials and 6 nonrandomized controlled trials, with a total of 760 dental implants situated in the esthetic zone. SST was associated with a superior pink esthetic score at the 6-month mark (PES-6M), showing superiority (IIP versus SST: MD=-1.31, 95%CI: -1.97, -0.66; NIIP-GBR versus SST: MD=-1.46, 95%CI: -2.80, -0.12; NIIP-ARP versus SST: MD=-1.88, 95%CI: -3.42, -0.35), and long-term follow-up over 12 months (PES-12M+, IIP versus SST: MD=-1.39, 95%CI: -1.86, -0.93; NIIP-GBR versus SST: MD=-1.50, 95%CI: -2.61, -0.40; NIIP-ARP versus SST: MD=-1.52, 95%CI: -2.97, -0.08). SST showed superiority in LBT changes (IIP versus SST: MD=0.52, 95%CI: 0.21,0.83), MBL exhibited no significant differences among comparisons. PROs indicated higher satisfaction with SST compared with IIP (MD=-0.27, 95%CI: -0.51, -0.02). Implant-supported prostheses with the socket shield technique demonstrated a superior postoperative esthetic outcome and the effective preservation of soft and hard tissues, suggesting that it is an optimal approach for the esthetic zone in patients with bone defects.