Background: Maxillary sinus lift is a well-documented and accepted technique in the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. Schneiderian membrane perforation is the most common complication and may occur in between 7% and 56% of cases. Different materials and techniques have been described to achieve reparation of the perforation. The aim of this study was to establish whether the perforation of the Schneiderian membrane and its repair during maxillary sinus lift surgery results in a lower implant survival rate compared to those cases where the membrane has not been perforated. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the survival rate of implants placed in regenerated sinus using the lateral window approach, where the perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occur, was carried out. Statistical analysis was performed with Open Meta-Analyst, calculating the odds ratio of implants placed in perforated sinuses and non-perforated sinuses. Results: Ten articles were included in the qualitative analysis and seven articles in the quantitative analysis or meta-analysis. A total of 1224 maxillary sinus augmentation surgeries were performed without perforation of the Schneiderian membrane and 2725 implants were placed; 62 implants failed during the follow-up period with an overall survival rate of 97.7%. In 480 perforated sinuses, 1044 implants were placed, of which 30 failed; the overall survival rate was 97.1%. There were no significant differences between the implant survival rate of the implants in the two groups (OR = 0.78; CI = 0.49–2.23; p = 0.28 and I² heterogeneity: 0%, p = 0.44). Conclusions: Schneiderian membrane perforation, as long as it is repaired, does not appear to negatively influence implant survival rate. Membrane perforation should not be considered a reason to abort the procedure or an absolute contraindication to implant placement.

In bone regeneration, obtaining a vital bone as similar as possible to native bone is sought. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of stem cells in maxillary bone regeneration for implant rehabilitation and to review the different techniques for obtaining and processing these cells. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using the Pubmed/Medline (NCBI), Cochrane, Scielo, and Scopus databases, without restriction on the publication date. The following Mesh terms were used, combined by the Boolean operator “AND”: “dental implants” AND “stem cells” AND “bioengineering”. Applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were obtained and three were added after manual search. The results from the meta-analysis (18 patients) did not provide significant differences despite the percentage of bone formed in the maxillary sinus, favoring the stem cell group, and the analysis of the percentage of residual Bio-Oss^® showed results favoring the control group. Stem cell regeneration usually shows positive vascular and viable bone formation. In conclusion, using mesenchymal stem cells in bone regeneration provides benefits in the quality of bone, similar or even superior to autologous bone, all this through a minimally invasive procedure.

Purpose: To conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on marginal bone loss (MBL) in dental implants, enhancing the understanding and management of both bone-level and tissue-level implants. Methods: MEDLINE-PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for relevant English articles (up to April 2024), assessing the MBL as the primary outcome. The relevant data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of implant neck design. Results: A total of 17 studies were included for qualitative analysis. Out of the 21 articles included, 15 studies established a statistically significant difference in MBL between the study groups; however, the differences were not found to be clinically relevant. Bone-level implants with platform-switched abutments in most of the cases showed better marginal bone stability compared to tissue-level implants or bone-level implants with matching abutments. Seven RCT studies were evaluated for the MBL between bone-level and tissue-level implants. The difference in MBL between bone-level implants and tissue-level implants was statistically significant, with a greater loss of bone in bone-level implants (Mean Difference: 0.11, 95% CI:0.02 to 0.19, p = 0.01 and I² heterogeneity: 81%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This review underscores the need for standardized measurement techniques, consideration of patient-specific factors in clinical decision-making, and further long-term studies to optimize dental implant success and patient outcomes.

Background: The mandibular third molar is the most frequently impacted tooth. An impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) can have negative consequences on the adjacent mandibular second molar (MSM), such as bone loss. An IMTM can be identified using orthopantomography (OPG). Our objective is to compare changes in bone level distal to the mandibular second molar (MSM) in patients with an extracted IMTM versus non-extracted IMTM using OPG. Methods: In this retrospective case–control study, 160 orthopantomograms (OPGs) of 80 patients who attended Dental Hospital of the University of Barcelona (HOUB) were randomly selected. Participants were stratified into a study group and control group. Results: Males and females experienced bone gain in the study group and bone loss in the control group. However, the difference in bone-level change was not statistically significant regarding gender in the study group. Within the study group, the age group of 29–39 years demonstrated significant (p-value = 0.042) bone gain after extraction compared to other age groups. However, the control group demonstrated bone loss in all age groups in which the difference is not statistically significant (p-value 0.794). Conclusions: Bone improvements distal to the MSM were observed after the extraction of an IMTM compared to when an IMTM was not extracted.

Background: The increase in soft tissue (ST) around implants can benefit peri-implant health and aesthetic results. The objective was to compare the gingival and esthetic health benefits of immediate implant placement (IIP) with simultaneous or delayed connective tissue graft (CTG) compared to IIP without CTG. Methods: A systematic review was carried out by two reviewers in Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were considered. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that were published between April 2017 and February 2024 were used. Studies that analyzed the performance of a simultaneous or deferred CTG after the placement of an implant in the aesthetic zone, with or without immediate provisionalization, without previous regeneration, with a follow-up of 6 months, and that were performed in humans were included. Results: Quantitative analysis was performed using data provided by the RCTs. The five RCTs that were selected analyzed a total “n” of 245 subjects who met the inclusion criteria and focused on the subject of the study. In the quantitative analysis, four RCTs were included. The studies evaluated buccal gingiva levels when placing the IIP with and without CTG, obtaining a mean buccal gingiva level difference of 0.09 mm (95% CI: −0.54 to 0.72, p = 0.05), statistically not significant, but with a favorable trend. Conclusions: The use of CTG associated with the II can maintain the gum level but not increase the volume. CTG is favorable for achieving successful esthetic results when immediate placement of an implant with a provisional prosthesis is planned.

Background/Objectives: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease of the oral mucosa that affects between 0.5% and 2% of the general population. In the last decade, several studies have associated cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) with some inflammatory skin diseases such as oral lichen planus, demonstrating the presence of dyslipidemia in these pathologies. The objective of this work is to review whether patients with OLP show higher dyslipidemia and CRP levels compared to a healthy control population without OLP. Methods: Searches were carried out in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. The studies had to perform a histopathological diagnosis for OLP and the patients could not take any medication to treat this disorder. Non-lichenoid reactions were included. Results: After an initial search that provided us with 254 papers, this number was reduced to 10 articles after a detailed evaluation. All of them were case–control studies that compared the presence of analytical cardiovascular risk factors in patients affected by OLP and in healthy subjects. Conclusions: There is no scientific evidence of the possible association between OLP and CVDs. The only association we can prove is the one between OPL and CVD risk factors, especially those related to the lipid profile. More studies are needed in order to evaluate this relationship in patients diagnosed with CVDs.