Objectives: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control).Material and methods: Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post‐extraction and at 4 months, the mid‐buccal and mid‐palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross‐sectional socket and alveolar‐process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and post‐surgical complications were also recorded.Results: BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid‐socket cross‐sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm² ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm² ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm² ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm² ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm² ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm² ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown.Conclusion: GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.

Peri-implant soft tissues play a role of paramount importance, not only on the esthetic appearance, but also on the maintenance and long-term stability of implants. The present report presents the conclusions from the Consensus Conference of the South European North African Middle Eastern Implantology & Modern Dentistry Association (SENAME) (4–6 November 2016, Cairo, Egypt). The conference focused on the topic of the soft tissue around dental implants, and in particular, on the influence of implant configurations on the marginal soft tissues, soft tissue alterations after immediate, early or delayed implant placement and immediate loading, the long-term outcomes of soft tissue stability around dental implants, and soft tissue augmentation around dental implants. Thirty world experts in this field were invited to take part in this two-day event; however, only 29 experts were in the final consensus voting process.

Objectives: Comparing PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, success, buccal bone thickness and patient‐reported outcomes of immediate dental implants placed in fresh alveolar sockets using a flap or a minimal split‐thickness envelope flap (MSTEF).Materials and methods: Implants following random assignment into a flap or MSTEF group were placed immediately in anterior and premolar areas. Guided bone regeneration and autogenous connective tissue graft were used in all cases. A temporary prosthesis was provided followed by the final prosthesis at 16–18 weeks. Success and survival rates together with radiographic buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 12‐month post‐loading. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated through the Pink (PES) and White (WES) Aesthetic Score by 8 blind clinicians of different training background and incorporated in modified success criteria.Results: 28 implants were placed on 28 patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in PES (10.54 control versus 10.80 test), WES scores (6.97 control versus 6.95 test) or success criteria including aesthetic parameters (modified success criteria) for the different specialty groups (Range 69%‐92%). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in survival (100%), success (100%), buccal wall thickness between control (0.72 ± 0.22) and test group (0.92 ± 0.31) and patients’ reported outcomes.Conclusions: Immediate dental implant treatment with flap/ MSTEF provided similar mean PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, mean buccal bone levels and patients’ satisfaction. However, aesthetic failures were common in both groups.