Background: The purpose of the study was to analyze the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as a single augmentation material for complicated cases of maxillary sinus floor elevation, resulting from membrane perforation or previous infections. Methods: Implant insertion in the posterior region of the maxilla was simultaneously performed with maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Schneiderian membrane elevation can be accompanied by extremely serious sinus membrane perforation, due to accidental tearing or intended incision for mucocele removal. PRFs were placed in the sinus cavity both for membrane sealing and sinus floor grafting. Radiological, histological and micro-CT analyses were performed. Implant survival was assessed every 6 months for 1 to 4 years, with a mean follow up of 1.8 years, after prosthetic loading. Radiological examinations were performed on CBCT at 9 and 12 and 36 months postoperatively and revealed improved degrees of radiopacity. Results: 19 implants were simultaneously placed in the course of nine maxillary sinus floor augmentation surgeries, with successful outcomes in terms of bone grafting and implant integration. New bone formation was evidenced 12 months postoperatively on radiological examination, micro-CT analysis, and histological analysis of a harvested bone segment from the augmented maxillary sinus. The mean gain in bone height of the sinus floor augmentation was 6.43 mm, with a maximum of 9 mm. The mean amount of vital bone obtained from histologic assessment was 52.30%, while bone volume/tissue volume ratio in micro-CT 3D had a mean of 50.32%. Conclusions: PRF may be considered as an alternative treatment for a single surgery of sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement, even in complicated cases with significant sinus membrane tearing.

Background and objectives: To evaluate whether sinus augmentation, using a minimally invasive implant device, via a non-submerged surgical approach, might negatively influence the outcome. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by evaluating patients’ files, classifying them into two groups. Fifty patients (22 men 28 women) were included in the study, 25 in each group. The use of an implant device based on residual alveolar ridge height for sinus augmentation, radiographic evaluation, insertion torque, membrane perforation, post-operative healing, and a minimum of 12 months follow-up were evaluated. Results: The mean residual alveolar ridge height was 5.4 mm for the non-submerged group and 4.2 mm for the submerged group. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications (including membrane perforations). The mean insertion torque was 45 N/cm for the study group and 20 N/cm for the control group. Complete soft tissue healing was observed within three weeks. Mean bone gain height was 8 mm for the study and 9.3 mm for the control group. All implants osseointegrated after 6–9 months of healing time. Mean follow-up was 17.5 months, range 12–36 months. Marginal bone loss at last follow-up was not statistically significantly different: 1 mm in the non-submerged vs. 1.2 mm in the submerged group. Conclusions: Submerged and non-submerged healing following maxillary sinus augmentation was comparable provided residual alveolar ridge height >5 mm and insertion torque >25 N/cm.

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: This study compared the influence of three different radial spacers (60,90,120 microns) on the marginal gap adaptation by using computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) for producing monolithic zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns. Methods: A total of 45 abutment acrylic teeth were divided into three groups of different radial spacers (60, 90, and 120 microns). In each group 15 teeth were scanned by Omnicam intra oral scanner and ZLS crowns were ground. For each unit the marginal gap was evaluated at four regions of interest by scanning electronic microscope (SEM). To compare the marginal gap between the three groups a one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test was preformed (α = 0.05). Results: The marginal gap for a 60 microns (162.99 ± 16.25 µm) radial spacer was found significantly higher than 90 (41.85 ± 3.57 µm) and 120 (41.85 ± 5.3 µm) microns radial spacers (p < 0.05). Between 90- and 120-micron radial spacers no difference was obtained. (p < 0.05). Conclusions: A radial spacer of 60 microns showed a significantly higher marginal gap compared to 90 and 120 microns and was not clinically accepted (>120 microns). For both 90 and 120 microns the marginal gap was clinically accepted (<120 microns) with no difference between the groups. The radial spacer which should be optimum for CELTRA^® DUO crowns is 90 microns.

Background: Within medicine, it is common to use risk prediction tools towards clinical decision making. One of the most widely accepted assessment tools is the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) classification. Oral and maxillofacial procedures performed in an ambulatory setting would be considered low risk for the procedure itself. However, little is known concerning the impact of ASA PS on surgical outcomes. The aim of the present research was to evaluate the effect of ASA PS classification on early implant failure (EIF). Methods: Retrospective cohort study based on dental records. All treatments were performed by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons and experienced prosthodontists. Inclusion criteria: ASA physical status 1,2,3, consecutive individuals. Variables included the following: age, gender, implant location, implant length, implant width, smoking, and early implant failure. Results: Univariate tests at the patient level showed no statistically difference between the different classifications of ASA PS (1,2,3). Multivariate model using logistic regression at individual level showed that two factors were found to be associated with an increased risk for EIF—augmented bone and implant brand. Conclusions: ASA PS 3 is not a contraindication for implant-supported prostheses. EIF in ASA PS 3 is not significantly different from ASA PS 1,2. In contrast, factors such as bone augmentation and implant brand might be significant risk factors for EIF, regardless of ASA PS.

Background: Osteoporosis affects bone metabolism and may result in fragility fractures. Medications include bone modulating therapy (BMT), which come with the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ). The literature is contradictory about the impact of osteoporosis and/or BMT on dental implant success and the incidence of ONJ. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of osteoporosis and BMT on early implant failure (EIF) and ONJ incidence (primary outcome parameters) following dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: Retrospective, cohort study based on dental records. Implant-supported prostheses (ISP) were delivered by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists. Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of osteoporosis, delivery of ISP, consecutive individuals, and available data. Confounding variables included—age, gender, smoking status, BMT, bone grafting, and implant length/diameter. Results: There were a total of 72 osteoporosis patients, 46 using and 26 not using BMT. There were a total of 279 inserted implants, 154 in those using and 124 in those not using BMT. Univariate analysis of factors that may affect EIF showed no statistically significant differences between non-osteoporotic, osteoporotic using BMT, and osteoporotic patients not using BMT regarding EIF and ONJ incidence following dental implant delivery. Multivariate model using logistic regression demonstrated one factor associated with increased risk for EIF—bone augmentation. No cases of ONJ were reported up to one year post ISP delivery in any group. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that installing dental implants in osteoporotic patients, treated or not with BMT, is a safe procedure with EIF comparable to non-osteoporotic patients. The short-term risk for ONJ following dental implant insertion in osteoporotic (even when using BMT) patients is negligible.