Objective: This integrative review aimed to identify studies comparing the periodontal health in patients wearing multibracket orthodontic appliances and clear aligners. Materials and methods: An integrative literature search was performed through different databases, PubMed/Medline, PMC, and the Cochrane Library. This work was submitted to a search strategy following the PICO method and included the focus question: “Could the chosen orthodontic appliance change significantly the oral hygiene of the patient, impairing the periodontal health?” This work included analytical and controlled studies on humans published between 2005 and 2020, in the English language, establishing a comparison of the periodontal status in patients undergoing orthodontic multibracket and clear aligners therapies. The main periodontal indexes assessed were plaque index (PI), pocket depth (PD), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Results: The electronic research displayed 386 articles on PMC, 106 on PubMed, and 40 on the Cochrane Library. After removal, just 25 articles were selected for full-text screening, but just eight studies were eligible for this integrative review. It was enumerated that 204 patients were treated with aligners and 294 with multibracket orthodontic appliances, mainly elastomeric ligated brackets. Only the plaque index displayed a significant difference between the two groups and general data obtained showed a better control for periodontal health in the clear aligners. Limitations such as age, malocclusion severity, therapeutic choice, and different time measure was observed. In addition, the oral hygiene instruction and follow-up by a professional were different, and the role of malocclusion was not present in the studies. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, better results for periodontal health were found in the clear aligners. Therefore, more studies are necessary to affirm that aligners are synonymous with better gingival conditions in comparison with multibracket appliances. Other variables such as oral hygiene instructions, motivation, and supportive treatment tend to be more prevalent than the type of appliance itself in the periodontal evaluation.

Objective: This review evaluated the use of autogenous tooth as a bone graft material in guided bone regeneration (GBR). Moreover, it compared the results of GBR using autogenous demineralized dentin, partially demineralized dentin, and mineralized dentin with or without membrane to verify its clinical advantage, effectiveness, and safety. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Lilacs, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Specific criteria were established for the inclusion and exclusion of studies, including types of studies considered, target population (clinical studies: humans), evaluated intervention (studies assessing and comparing autologous demineralized dentin, partially demineralized dentin, and mineralized dentin in GBR with or without resorbable membrane), and language and publication period of articles (English and published in the last 11 years). A detailed assessment of the methodological quality of the selected studies was conducted using the JBI critical appraisal tool. Results: Based on the analysis conducted, out of 174 potentially relevant articles obtained, only 19 publications met the inclusion criteria, with three papers showing medium quality/moderate risk of bias and the rest with high quality/low risk of bias. Comparison between groups revealed stability of the newly formed bone, low marginal bone loss, clinically acceptable primary and secondary implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, and high implant survival rates after using autogenous tooth biomaterial. Conclusions: The results of this review on the use of autogenous teeth as a bone graft material in guided bone regeneration indicated that the technique has the potential to be an effective and safe treatment option. Analysis of selected studies showed favorable evidence for the use of autogenous teeth in bone regeneration, suggesting clinical benefits, most for socket preservation. These results are relevant for guiding clinical practice and assisting dental professionals in having options for biomaterials for bone regeneration.

Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to verify whether the gingival phenotype (thick or thin) could impact the dental implant survival rate by affecting the marginal bone. Methods: The search was carried out on PubMed/MedLine, PubMed Central, and B-On databases. The research question was: “Does gingival phenotype positively or negatively influence marginal bone loss around dental implants?” The inclusion criteria were: any clinical trial/study, comparative study, prospective or retrospective articles, systematic review that addressed at least a 1-year follow-up with an assessment of the marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants, articles that reported the gingival phenotype (thin or thick) and were published in the last 13 years. The exclusion criteria were narrative or other reviews, letters to the editor, and commentaries. Data extraction included the author’s name, year of publication, type of study, sample size, number of implants, method used, and outcomes presented. The extracted data was summarized and presented in the results section. Critical Appraisal tool in JBI Systematic Reviews was used to determine the possibility of bias. Results: A total of 62 articles were found, but eight articles were relevant to compose this study. After deep evaluation, it was possible to observe the implant success rate for both gingival phenotypes, thin and thick, was greater than 91% within a follow-up of up to 5 years. Therefore, it is unclear whether the thickness of the gingival tissue surrounding the implant can directly influence the marginal bone level. The gingival phenotype may be indirectly involved in the survival rate of dental implants, as it can be a risk factor for peri-implantitis, leading to marginal bone loss beyond what is expected. Discussion: The thin gingival phenotype is one of the main risk factors for additional bone loss. It is crucial to know how to preserve the healthy condition. Conclusion: Within the results found, the gingival phenotype is indirectly related to implant survival rate and clinical parameters, which were respectively high and non-conclusive. Therefore, a higher risk of peri-implantitis is suggested when a thin phenotype is present.

Surgical success includes a planned incision, achieving haemostasis, good mechanical closure and optimal maintenance of the surgical wound. New materials, as tissue adhesives, have been suggested as substitutes for sutures, to overcome their disadvantages. This study aimed at gathering the differences of using surgical adhesives in oral surgery compared with the conventional method of using sutures as a wound closure technique. PRISMA analyses, PICO criteria and PubMed/Medline database, EBSCO and Cochrane Library were used for research. Inclusion criteria included prospective, randomized controlled trials and case–control studies published in English with full access, where clinical advantages and demerits/limitations were reported in patients who underwent oral surgical incisions, without time restrictions. Exclusion criteria comprised literature with lower level of evidence. A total of 15 studies were assessed and analysed 15 parameters as alternatives to sutures (100%), cost‐effectiveness (6,6%), postoperative pain (53,3%), time consumption (73,3%), haemostasis (46,6%), homeostasis (13,3%), aids healing (26,6%), tissue inflammation (26,6%), safety (6,6%), graft dimension (3,13), biocompatibility (13,3%), adhesion to tissue (6,6%), bacteriostatic effect (20%), oedema (13,3%) and ease of application (26,6). Selected articles' results indicate that surgical glues can be a suitable alternative and/or adjuvant to oral sutures, presenting numerous advantages.

The goal of this comprehensive review was to verify if the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) bacteria in patients with dyspepsia is higher in the oral cavity of periodontal or non-periodontal patients. The bibliographic search was conducted on scientific studies published in PubMed, Cochrane Library, SciELO, and BVS. The focus question was: “In patients with dyspepsia and periodontitis, is the prevalence of Hp bacteria in the oral cavity higher than in patients with only dyspepsia or without any disease?” The inclusion criteria were human studies in English, Portuguese, or Spanish languages, published between 2000 and 2022, that included patients over the age of 18 and aimed to evaluate the presence of Hp bacteria in the oral cavity and in the protective mucosal layer of the gastric lining of patients with the diseases (periodontitis and dyspepsia) or without disease; clinical trials, randomized controlled clinical trials, comparative studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies. The methodological quality evaluation of the included articles was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. The final scores could be of “Low” quality (at least two “no” [red] or ≥ five “unclear” found), “Moderate” quality (one “no” [red] was found or up to four “unclear” criteria were met), or “High” quality (all green [yes] or at maximum two “unclear”). Of 155 potentially eligible articles, 10 were included in this comprehensive review after the application of the eligibility criteria. The selected studies were scrutinized regarding the relationship between Hp colonization in the oral cavity and stomach, its impact on severity and complications of gastric infection, as well as the effect of the presence of oral and gastric Hp on dental and systemic parameters. Hp can colonize periodontal pockets regardless of its presence in the stomach. There was a higher prevalence of oral biofilm in dyspeptic patients with periodontal disease, and worse control of bleeding and low oral hygiene was observed in periodontal compared to non-periodontal patients. For que quality assessment, the scientific studies included presented low to moderate methodological quality. Conclusions: It is possible to conclude that Hp is a bacterium that can colonize dental plaque independently of the stomach and vice versa; however, when both diseases are found, its presence may be more significant. Supra and subgingival dental plaque may be a reservoir of Hp, suggesting that patients with gastric infections are more likely to have Hp in the oral cavity. The results must be carefully analyzed due to the limitations present in this review.