Background: Dimensional changes after dental extraction frequently lead to situations in which bone augmentation procedures are required prior to dental implant placement. Bone ring technique (BRT) has been described as a one-stage approach to restore vertical alveolar ridge defects, in which an autogenous or allogeneic cortico-cancellous bone block graft is stabilized with a dental implant inserted simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical performance of BRT.Materials and methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.Results: Sixteen studies with a total of 186 patients treated with 219 bone rings bocks were included in the review. The studies showed a mean bone gain of 4.94 mm, mean bone resorption of 0.83 mm, and mean marginal bone loss of 0.57 mm after a mean follow-up period of 13.35 months. A mean bone ring survival rate of 97.26% and implant survival rate of 94.97% were recorded.Conclusions: BRT would appear to be an adequate alternative technique for restoring single vertical alveolar ridge defects with simultaneous dental implant placement. However, further studies comparing this technique with other vertical ridge augmentation procedures in different clinical scenarios are needed to confirm the present results.

Introduction and Objective: Zygomatic implants (ZI) offer a good and predictable alternative to reconstructive procedures of atrophic maxillae. The main objetive of this systematic review was to assess the effect of rehabilitation with zygomatic implants on patient's quality of life (QLP) using Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs). Materials and Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines. An automated electronic search was conducted in four databases supplemented by a manual search for relevant articles published until the end of January 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results: General findings of this systematic review showed substantial increases in Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among patients restored with ZI and high scores in terms of general satisfaction, especially in chewing ability and esthetics. An overall survival rate of ZI was 98.3% after a mean follow-up time of 46.5 months was observed. Occurrence of 13.1% biological complications and 1.8% technical complications were reported. Conclusions: Patients rehabilitated with zygomatic implant-supported complete dental prostheses showed substantial improvements in OHRQoL and general satisfaction with the treatment received.

Cardiovascular diseases are the most frequent cause of death in the Western world. Its treatment frequently needs therapy with antiplatelet agents, which increases the haemorrhage risk after oral surgical procedures. The aim of this study is to present a review on the dental management of the patients under antiplatelet treatment. A systematic review was carried out following PRISMA recommendations including studies searched in Pubmed-Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. The current trend is to maintain the treatment during the surgical procedure, assuring a good control of the haemorrhage with local haemostatic measures. However, new antiplatelet drugs protocols are not firmly established. In spite of the existing recommendations, it is always advisable to consult with the internist or cardiologist of every patient before any intervention. Key words:Antiplatelet, Oral Surgery, Exodontia, Dental Management.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the postoperative effect of a topic gel containing chlorhexidine, chitosan, allantoine and dexpanthenol versus a placebo for pain and inflammation control after third molar surgery. Material and Methods: A gel combining 0.2% chlorhexdine, 0.5% chitosan, 5% dexpanthenol, 0.15% allantoin and 0.01% sodium saccharin was selected for this split mouth randomized controlled and double-blind trial including 36 patients with bilaterally and symmetrically impacted lower third molars. The teeth (n=72) were randomly divided into two groups before surgical removal: control group (CG; in which a placebo was given) and experimental group (EG). Swelling, trismus, postoperative pain, wound healing and complications were measured and recorded in order to evaluate differences between the placebo and experimental product. Results: Five patients suffered from an alveolitis in the CG (13.9%), and none in the study group (0%, but no statistically significant difference was found (p=0.063). From day 0 to day 7, trismus and swelling were significantly less pronounced in the EG, and wound healing was considered 'good' in 22.2% for the CG and 97.2% for the EG (p<0.001). Mean VAS scores during the seven postoperative days were statistically lower in the study (2.56 +/- 1,19) compared to the placebo group (3.25 +/- 1.6) (p =0.002). The mean consumption of analgesic pills during the first 92 hours was also statistically lower in the EG (0.26 +/- 0.51) in comparison to the CG (0.56 +/- 0.67) (p=0.003). Conclusions: The use of an experimental gel containing chlorhexidine, chitosan, allantoine and dexpanthenol seems to significantly reduce postoperative pain, trismus and signs of inflammation. Future studies should further evaluate, if the gel is effective in dry socket preventing after third molar removal.

Purpose: Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a safe and effective surgical technique for achieving vertical bone height, performed through either a lateral or crestal approach. The latter includes both the osteotome technique and osseodensification. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of the classic crestal sinus lift technique and the osseodensification sinus lift approach in terms of the bone gain, marginal bone loss, survival rate, follow-up time and complications. Methods: This review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across three databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed); (2) SCOPUS; and (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for evaluating risk of bias. A meta-analysis for random effects was carried out for implant survival, residual bone height and bone gain. Results: Thirteen studies were included, ten studies performed the osteotome (OST) approach and three performed the osseodensification (OD) approach, with a total of 519 sites treated. The residual bone height was 5.94 and 5.00 mm for OD and OST, respectively. For bone gain, similar results were found for both groups, being 3.37 mm for OD and 3.18 mm for OST. For both groups, the most used diameter and length of the implant was 4 and 10 mm, respectively, and the implant survival rates ranged from 94.1% to 100%. OST technique reflected a complication rate of 14.32%, compared to the OD technique, which showed a complication rate of 2.78%. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the maxillary sinus lift by osseodesinfication approach is a safe, predictable and successful technique compared to the osteotome approach, with similar outcomes regarding bone gain which is an important parameter for implant placement.