Background: Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion, and use of a polished collar have traditionally been investigated as major contributory factors for this early remodeling. Recently, soft tissue thickness has also been investigated as a possible factor influencing this phenomenon. Hence, this study aims to further evaluate the influence of soft tissue thickness on early MBL around dental implants.Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to May 2015 reporting soft tissue thickness at time of implant placement and MBL with ≥12‐month follow‐up. In addition, random effects meta‐analyses of selected studies were applied to analyze the weighted mean difference (WMD) of MBL between groups of thick and thin peri‐implant soft tissue. Metaregression was conducted to investigate any potential influences of confounding factors, i.e., platform switching design, cement‐/screw‐retained restoration, and flapped/flapless surgical techniques.Results: Eight articles were included in the systematic review, and five were included in the quantitative synthesis and meta‐analyzed to examine the influence of tissue thickness on early MBL. Meta‐analysis for the comparison of MBL among selected studies showed a WMD of −0.80 mm (95% confidence interval −1.18 to −0.42 mm) (P <0.0001), favoring the thick tissue group. Metaregression of the selected studies failed to demonstrate an association among MBL and confounding factors.Conclusion: The current study demonstrates that implants placed with an initially thicker peri‐implant soft tissue have less radiographic MBL in the short term.

Background: This systematic review was requested by the Task Force of the American Academy of Periodontology as a follow‐up study of the 2013 report, with an aim to investigate the efficacy of different surgical approaches to treat peri‐implantitis.Methods: A search of four electronic databases from January 1990 to May 2013 was performed. Studies included were human clinical trials published in English that applied surgeries for treating peri‐implantitis. Parameters evaluated included probing depth (PD) reduction, clinical attachment level gain, bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction, radiographic bone fill (RBF), and mucosal recession. The weighted mean (WM) and the 95% confidence interval of the studied parameters were estimated with the random‐effect model.Results: A total of 1,306 studies were initially identified, after reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts, and 21 articles, 12 of which were case series, were finally included. Four treatment groups were identified: 1) access flap and debridement; 2) surgical resection; 3) application of bone grafting materials; and 4) guided bone regeneration. The mean initial PD ranged from 4.8 to 8.8 mm, with initial BOP ranging from 19.7% to 100%. Short‐term follow‐ups (3 to 63 months) revealed that the available surgical procedures yielded a WM PD reduction of 2.04 (group 2) to 3.16 mm (group 4), or 33.4% to 48.2% of the initial PD. The WM RBF was 2.1 mm for groups 3 and 4.Conclusions: Within the limitation of this systematic review, the application of grafting materials and barrier membranes resulted in greater PD reduction and RBF, but there is a lack of high‐quality comparative studies to support this statement. The results might be used to project treatment outcomes after surgical management of peri‐implantitis.

Basel Elnayef, DDS, MS, PhD/Cristina Porta, DDS, MS/Fernando Su?rez-L?pez del Amo, DDS, MS/Lorenzo Mordini, DDS, MS/Jordi Gargallo-Albiol, DDS, PhD/Federico Hern?ndez-Alfaro, MD, DDS, MS, PhD: Purpose: Owing to volumetric changes after tooth extraction, lateral ridge augmentation has become a common procedure prior or simultaneous to implant placement. Nonetheless, little is known with regard to the dimensional remodeling after healing of these lateral ridge augmentation procedures. Hence, the purpose of this systematic review was to assess the stability of bone grafting material between augmentation procedures and final healing, in terms of resorption rate. Materials and Methods: An electronic and hand literature search was conducted in several databases, such as the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up until February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a mean follow-up of at least 6 months after implant placement aiming to evaluate the stability of grafting material for lateral ridge augmentation were included and quantitatively analyzed. Results: A total of 35 articles were evaluated; however, only 17 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 studies reported information on bone resorption, leading to a total sample of 304 implants. The estimated overall mean horizontal bone gain at the time of regeneration was 3.71 ? 0.24 mm, with 4.18 ? 0.56 mm for the block graft technique and 3.61 ? 0.27 mm for guided bone regeneration (GBR). The estimated overall net bone gain at final re-evaluation (11.9 ? 7.8) was 2.86 ? 0.23 mm. The estimated mean (? SD) resorption after 6 months was 1.13 ? 0.25 mm, with 0.75 ? 0.59 mm for the block graft technique and 1.22 ? 0.28 mm for GBR. The implant survival rate was 97% to 100%. Conclusion: Regardless of the material used for regeneration, different degrees of graft resorption should be expected. Given the sample of investigations analyzed in this review, block grafts seemed to maintain the volume of the initial augmentation site more than GBR techniques. During the initial stages of healing, the GBR technique experienced more changes compared with block grafts. The resorption of the xenograft group was inferior compared with the combination of xenograft and autologous bone groups. Consequently, overcorrection of the horizontal defects should be performed to compensate for the resorption of the grafting materials.

The purpose of this paper was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant diseases including both, mucositis and peri-implantitis lesions. An electronic search in two different databases was performed including MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE from 2011 to 2016. Human studies reporting non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis with more than 10 implants and at least 6 months follow up published in English language were evaluated. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the different methods of decontamination employed in the included investigations. Risk of bias assessment was elaborated for included investigations. Twenty-five articles were identified of which 14 were further evaluated and included in the analysis. Due to significant heterogeneity in between included studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a systematic descriptive review was performed. Included investigations reported the used of different methods for implant decontamination, including self-performed cleaning techniques, and professionally delivered treatment such as laser, photodynamic therapy, supra-/sub-mucosal mechanical debridement, and air-abrasive devices. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 60 months. Non-surgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis seems to be effective while modest and not-predictable outcomes are expected for peri-implantitis lesions. Limitations include different peri-implant diseases definitions, treatment approaches, as well as different implant designs/surfaces and defect characteristics.

Background: With the increased use of short dental implants (0.15) for potential effects regarding the observation period, the type of implant connection, or between both methods of evaluating the C/I ratio.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, the C/I ratio of implant‐supported restorations has an effect on peri‐implant marginal bone level. Within the range of 0.6/1 to 2.36/1, the higher the C/I ratio, the less the peri‐implant MBL.