Guided bone regeneration using demineralized laminar bone sheets versus GTAM membranes in the treatment of implant-associated defects. A clinical and histological study

Histological and Biological Response to Different Types of Biomaterials: A Narrative Single Research Center Experience over Three Decades

Background: In more than three decades of work of the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara in Italy, many types of biomaterials were received and evaluated. The present retrospective review aimed to evaluate the histological and biological aspects of the evaluated bone substitute biomaterials. Methods: In the present study, the authors prepared a retrospective analysis after the screening of some databases (PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE) to find papers published from the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undermineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara analyzing only the papers dealing with bone substitute biomaterials and scaffolds, in the form of granules and block grafts, for bone regeneration procedures. Results: Fifty-two articles were found, including in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies of different biomaterials. These articles were evaluated and organized in tables for a better understanding. Conclusions: Over three decades of studies have made it possible to assess the quality of many bone substitute biomaterials, helping to improve the physicochemical and biological properties of the biomaterials used in daily clinical practice.

Histological and Histomorphometric Effectiveness of the Barrier Membranes for Jawbone Regeneration: An Overview of More Than 30 Years’ Experience of Research Results of the Italian Implant Retrieval Center (1988–2020)

With the advent of implant dentistry, height and width of the bone site are fundamental to perform implant placements. There are several techniques to restore the amount of bone loss and one of them is guided bone regeneration, which is based on the employment of a membrane in order to bypass non-osteogenic cell invasion in the bone healing area, dispersing every interference with bone regeneration. Two expert reviewers performed a retrospective evaluation of all scientific papers published by the Implant Retrieval Center Laboratory of University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara in the last three decades, and they implemented it by also similar conducting research on the main scientific databases, i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. The search was conducted up to December 2020, and a total of 843 articles published by the Implant Retrieval Center Laboratory of University “G.D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara were identified and evaluated. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 27 manuscripts were included for the qualitative synthesis: 8 animal studies, 17 human studies, and 2 in vitro articles. The present overview shows the importance of translational research for barrier membranes for bone regeneration, and additionally, the need for experts in different fields and research centers to produce high quality data in future research.

Evaluation of an Osseous Allograft Membrane for Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Dog

Clinical application of a demineralized freeze-dried cortical bone membrane allograft (DFBMA) for treatment of intra(infra)bony periodontal pockets in dogs was evaluated. The mean pre-treatment periodontal probing depth equaled 7.2-mm. Post-treatment probing depths in all 11 cases were normal, with a mean periodontal probing gain of 5.4-mm. Guided tissue regeneration using a commercially available veterinary canine DFBMA and canine demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) resulted in clinically significant periodontal attachment gains. The gain of new periodontal tissue attachment was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). The commercially available veterinary allograft products predictably increased new periodontal attachment without any identified membrane sequelae in these 11 cases.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment

BACKGROUND

Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation.

OBJECTIVES

General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

(A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 9th January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs out of 40 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 455 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Ten trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Major bone grafting procedures of resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of atrophic maxillary sinuses. Various techniques can augment bone horizontally and vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier plus Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss. Titanium may be preferable to resorbable screws to fixate onlay bone grafts. The use of particulate autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, sometimes having short follow up, and often being judged to be at high risk of bias.

Randomized clinical trials in implant therapy: relationships among methodological, statistical, clinical, paratextual features and number of citations

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships among reported methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual variables of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in implant therapy, and their influence on subsequent research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The material consisted of the RCTs in implant therapy published through the end of the year 2000. Methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of the articles were assessed and recorded. The perceived clinical relevance was subjectively evaluated by an experienced clinician on anonymous abstracts. The impact on research was measured by the number of citations found in the Science Citation Index. A new statistical technique (Structural learning of Bayesian Networks) was used to assess the relationships among the considered variables.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics revealed that the reported methodology and statistics of RCTs in implant therapy were defective. Follow-up of the studies was generally short. The perceived clinical relevance appeared to be associated with the objectives of the studies and with the number of published images in the original articles. The impact on research was related to the nationality of the involved institutions and to the number of published images.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs in implant therapy (until 2000) show important methodological and statistical flaws and may not be appropriate for guiding clinicians in their practice. The methodological and statistical quality of the studies did not appear to affect their impact on practice and research. Bayesian Networks suggest new and unexpected relationships among the methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of RCTs.

Assessment of Bias in Methodology for Randomized Controlled Trials Published on Implant Dentistry

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published on implant dentistry over a 10-year period (1991 to 2000), based on the reporting of control of potential sources of bias in the design methodology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted for RCTs using keywords dental implant and publication type randomized controlled trial. Three areas of trial methodology were assessed: (1) adequate reporting of randomization procedure, (2) blinding in assessment of outcomes, and (3) handling of subject withdrawals in data analysis. A score of 1 or 0 was assigned for each of the three potential sources of bias. Thus, the maximum quality score for an RCT is 3 and the minimum is 0.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles met criteria for classification as RCTs. Method of randomization was explicit in 51% of the RCTs, but only 12% incorporated blinding in the assessment of outcome. Ninety-eight percent accounted for all subjects at the end of the study. Looking at overall quality scores, only 2% of RCTs adequately reported on control of bias in the three areas examined, 56% were deficient in one area, and 42% were deficient in two areas.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of randomization procedures and blinding in outcomes assessment for most implant RCTs was inadequate. Subject retention and documentation of subject withdrawals were adequately reported.