Introduction: Dental implants are widely employed as dependable replacements for lost teeth. However, it is crucial to establish, solely through prospective cohort studies, whether a history of periodontitis indeed constitutes a significant risk factor for implant failure.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2022 in several electronic databases with subsequent manual updates. Only original prospective cohort studies evaluating the implant (loss) rate ≥1 year after implant loading were included. Logarithmic risk ratio and weighted mean differences were calculated. Study results were summarized using random effects meta‐analyses evaluated by trial sequential analyses. The Newcastle‐Ottawa scale evaluated study bias and the GRADE approach assessed the certainty/quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 14 publications reporting on 12 prospective cohort studies were included. Low evidence certainty/quality evidence due to the absence of randomized clinical trials revealed significantly greater odds of failure in patients with a history of periodontitis at follow‐ups both after ≤5 years (RR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.71–2.37; p = 0.013) and >5 years (RR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.12–4.53; p = 0.023). The incidence of peri‐implantitis (RR = 4.09; 95% CI: 1.93–8.58; p < 0.001) and the weighted mean (WM) of marginal bone loss (WM difference = 0.75 mm; 95% CI: 0.18–1.31; p < 0.05) were statistically significantly greater in the periodontally compromised group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for peri‐implant probing depth.Conclusion: A history of periodontitis can be considered a significant risk factor for incident implant failure, peri‐implantitis, and greater marginal bone loss.

Aim: To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.Materials and Methods: Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.Results: Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5‐year survival rates for ≤6‐mm and ≥10‐mm implants in non‐augmented bone and full‐mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6‐mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5‐year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4‐mm and 5‐mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short‐ and long‐term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.Conclusions: Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5‐year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10‐mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full‐arch rehabilitation, and 6‐mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Aims: This non‐inferiority randomised clinical trial aimed to compare vertical bone gain (VBG), volumetric bone changes and incidence of complications after vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) using perforated titanium‐reinforced dense‐polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh covered by a collagen membrane (CM) or used alone. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with vertical bone defects were randomly assigned to receive VRA with either PTFE + CM or PTFE alone. Meshes were removed after 9 months. Clinical assessments included complication rates, pseudo‐periosteum type and bone density. VBG, effective regeneration rate and the need for additional augmentation were evaluated using CBCT reconstructions. Results: Non‐inferiority of PTFE alone compared with PTFE + CM was not demonstrated for absolute and relative VBG (4.5 ± 2.1 mm vs. 4.1 ± 2.7 mm, 79.2% ± 16.6% vs. 85.8% ± 10.6%, respectively), effective regeneration rates (69.3% ± 17.9% vs. 72.3% ± 16.4%, respectively) or complication rates (6.7% in both groups). A higher incidence of type 1 pseudo‐periosteum was observed in the PTFE + CM group. Conclusion: The non‐inferiority of PTFE alone compared with PTFE + CM for absolute VBG was not established. However, both techniques led to comparable outcomes for VBG, complication rates and bone density. The higher incidence of type 1 pseudo‐periosteum and lacking bone volume in the PTFE + CM group suggests that adding a collagen membrane may help prevent soft tissue ingrowth. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT04843488

Aim: The aim of this analysis was to compare a clinical periodontal prognostic system and a developed and externally validated artificial intelligence (AI)‐based model for the prediction of tooth loss in periodontitis patients under supportive periodontal care (SPC) for 10 years.Materials and Methods: Clinical and radiographic parameters were analysed to assign tooth prognosis with a tooth prognostic system (TPS) by two calibrated examiners from different clinical centres (London and Pittsburgh). The prediction model was developed on the London dataset. A logistic regression model (LR) and a neural network model (NN) were developed to analyse the data. These models were externally validated on the Pittsburgh dataset. The primary outcome was 10‐year tooth loss in teeth assigned with ‘unfavourable’ prognosis.Results: A total of 1626 teeth in 69 patients were included in the London cohort (development cohort), while 2792 teeth in 116 patients were included in the Pittsburgh cohort (external validated dataset). While the TPS in the validation cohort exhibited high specificity (99.96%), moderate positive predictive value (PPV = 50.0%) and very low sensitivity (0.85%), the AI‐based model showed moderate specificity (NN = 52.26%, LR = 67.59%), high sensitivity (NN = 98.29%, LR = 91.45%), and high PPV (NN = 89.1%, LR = 88.6%).Conclusions: AI‐based models showed comparable results with the clinical prediction model, with a better performance in specific prognostic risk categories, confirming AI prediction model as a promising tool for the prediction of tooth loss.

Background and Objectives: Unfavorable intrabony defects (IBDs) are associated with the progression of periodontal disease and tooth loss. Growing scientific evidence has demonstrated the effectiveness of platelet concentrations in periodontal treatment. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of an autogenous bone graft (ABG) associated with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared to ABG + Collagen Membrane in the treatment of IBDs. Material and Methods: Sixty-four patients with at least one IBD were randomly assigned to two groups: ABG+L-PRF and CM+ABG. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), probing pocket depth (PPD), and radiograph defect bone level (DBL) were compared between the two treatments. To evaluate the effectiveness of ABG+L-PRF, a non-inferiority margin of =1 mm (−1 mm for GR) was chosen; a second non-inferiority margin of =0.5 mm (−0.5 mm for GR) was set for clinical relevance. Results: At 12-month follow up, both treatments showed clinical and radiographic improvements. The 90% confidence intervals of the CM+ABG–L-PRF+ABG mean difference for CAL gain (−0.0564 mm [−0.316 to 0.203]), DBL gain (−0.433 mm [−0.721 to −0.145]), and PPD reduction (0.232 mm [0.015 to 0.449]) were below the 0.5 mm non-inferiority margin; the GR increase (0.255 mm [0.0645 to 0.445]) stayed above the −0.5 mm. Conclusions: the L-PRF+ABG treatment of unfavorable IBDs is non-inferior with respect to the CM+ABG therapy for CAL gain, but with a lower GR, a slightly higher PPD, and DBL gain.

Periodontal diseases, including gingivitis and periodontitis, are chronic inflammatory conditions that compromise the supporting structures of the teeth, often leading to tooth loss and contributing to systemic comorbidities. Increasing evidence underscores the critical role of modifiable lifestyle factors, particularly diet and physical activity, in influencing periodontal health. This narrative review critically evaluates the current body of literature regarding the impact of dietary constituents and physical activity on the periodontium, with a focus on the molecular mechanisms, key biomarkers, and clinical implications. It aims to provide a deeper understanding of the complex interactions between nutrition, exercise, and periodontal health with potential implications for clinical management and preventive strategies.