Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease driven by the accumulation of bacterial plaque and the host’s immune response, leading to the destruction of periodontal tissues. Nutrition, particularly the intake of micronutrients with anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, plays a crucial role in maintaining periodontal health. This review explores the impact of various micronutrients—vitamins (A, B, C, D, E), minerals (calcium, iron, zinc, potassium, copper, manganese, selenium), and omega-3 fatty acids—on periodontal disease prevention and management. Deficiencies in these nutrients can exacerbate periodontal tissue damage by impairing immune responses, promoting oxidative stress, and reducing bone and tissue regeneration capabilities. While certain populations may be more vulnerable to these deficiencies, such as those following Western diets or living in low- and middle-income countries, even in developed nations, suboptimal nutrient intake is associated with worse periodontal outcomes. Although some studies suggest that supplementation of specific micronutrients may benefit periodontal therapy, the evidence remains inconclusive, necessitating further randomized clinical trials. This review underscores the importance of considering nutritional guidance in periodontal treatment protocols and highlights the need for tailored recommendations based on recent findings.

Aim: To assess the horizontal and vertical dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge when using a collagen matrix in combination with collagen embedded xenogenic bone substitute, in comparison with natural healing after tooth extraction.Methods: Patients that required extraction in non‐molars areas were included. Test group‐15 sockets were treated with deproteinized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen (DBBM‐C), covered by a procaine collagen membrane (CMXs). Control group‐15 sockets left for spontaneous healing. We used a custom‐made acrylic stent as a reference for alveolar ridge measurements. Six‐month postoperative, a single implant was placed in the experimental site. A core biopsy was taken from the site, using a trephine bur. Histomorphometric analysis assessed bone area, connective tissue, bone marrow, and residual bone graft.Results: Six months later, horizontal ridge width at −3 mm showed a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in both groups albeit smaller in the test group 1.19 ± 1.55 mm, compared with the control 2.27 ± 1.52 (p = 0.087). At −5 mm sub‐crestally, statistically non‐significant reduction was noted in both groups, 1.61 ± 1.53 and 1.96 ± 1.52 mm for the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.542). Vertical changes were smaller in the test group (0.14 ± 1.84 mm) compared with control (0.98 ± 1.49 mm). Keratinized tissue (KT) width was 7.3 ± 2.13 and 7.5 ± 3.49 mm in the test and control groups, respectively. Newly formed bone occupied 33.79 ± 17.37% and 51.14 ± 23.04% in the test and control groups, respectively, (p = 0.11). Connective tissue volume was 33.74 ± 13.81% and 30.12 ± 18.32% in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.65). Bone marrow occupied 19.57 ± 10.26% and 18.74 ± 17.15% in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.91). Residual graft occupied 12.9 ± 9.88% in the test group.Conclusion: Alveolar ridge preservation using DBBM‐C resulted in reductions of the vertical and horizontal dimensions albeit not reaching statistical significance. The larger than anticipated standard deviation and smaller inter‐group differences might account for this phenomenon.

Background: This prospective cohort trial examines the effects of heavy smoking on peri‐implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant survival rates over 15 months. Methods: Thirty subjects, categorized as either smokers (more than 20 cigarettes daily for over 5 years) or non‐smokers, were initially recruited with pocket depths ≤ 5 mm and at least one missing tooth. Urine cotinine assay was used to confirm smoking status. Implants were placed and restored after 4 months. Clinical, radiographic and stability variables were assessed at placement, 15, 24, and 67 weeks. Measurements included marginal bone height, peri‐implant pocket depth, implant stability, bleeding on probing, and plaque index. Statistical analyses included Mann–Whitney tests for continuous variables, Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, and generalized estimating equations for longitudinal changes. Results: Thirteen implants were installed in the smoker group (11 subjects) and 18 in the non‐smoker group (18 subjects). Survival rates were lower in smokers (84.6%) compared with non‐smokers (94.4%). Smokers experienced significantly greater marginal bone loss 12 months after final reconstruction (1.5 ± 0.3 mm versus 0.7 ± 0.6 mm; p = 0.008). Pocket depth was slightly greater in smokers but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Heavy smoking significantly increases marginal bone loss and decreases implant survival. Further research is needed to corroborate these findings and develop intervention programs. Plain language summary: Heavy smoking is a well‐known risk factor for poor dental health, yet its effects on dental implants are less frequently examined. This study investigated how heavy smoking (more than 20 cigarettes daily for at least 5 years) impacts the success of dental implants. We monitored 29 patients, including both heavy smokers and non‐smokers, over 15 months after implant placement and restoration. We evaluated bone loss, implant stability, and success rates. Our results showed that heavy smokers experienced significantly more bone loss—twice as much as non‐smokers—along with slightly reduced implant stability and survival. These adverse outcomes likely relate to smoking's negative effects on bone healing and immune function. Our findings underscore the importance of addressing smoking before implant procedures and suggest that quitting smoking could greatly improve long‐term outcomes. Further research is needed to develop strategies for mitigating the risks of smoking in implant dentistry.

Background: Tooth loss causes alveolar bone resorption, which may hinder the ability of implant placement. Socket preservation with immediate implant placement is one of the methods used to reduce bone resorption. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the influence of the use of dense polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membranes on alveolar preservation after tooth extraction and with the installation of immediate dental implants. Methods: In this retrospective study, one hundred and four patients were divided into two groups: immediate implant and gap filling with heterogenous bone graft (control group, 52 patients) or immediate implant, gap filling with heterogenous bone graft, and covering with a d-PTFE membrane with dimensions of 12 × 24 mm, which was intentionally left exposed to the oral cavity (test group, 52 patients). Tomographic data were obtained before and 12 months after the surgical procedures. Results: The membranes exposed in the oral cavity showed no infection. Volumetric analyses revealed a statistically significant difference in alveolar ridge resorption for the control and d-PTFE groups, 16.75% and 4.55%, respectively. Conclusions: Intentionally exposed d-PTFE membranes showed minimal complications. Based on the volumetric results, alveolar ridge preservation with d-PTFE membranes was superior to the bone graft alone in immediate implant placement.