PubMed ID (PMID): 20467602Pages 247-266, Language: English
Background: Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.
Objectives: To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.
Search methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. The last electronic search was conducted on 4 February 2009.
Selection criteria: RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year of follow-up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years.
Data collection and analysis: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by at least two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed.
Results: A total of 13 trials were included out of 35 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow-up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including nine trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.1 mm, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55) and PPD reduction (0.9 mm, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.82). Approximately nine patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 25%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating only trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis (four trials), the effect size for PAL was 0.62 mm (95% CI 0.28 to 0.96), which was less than 1.1 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed significantly more post-operative complications (three trials, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.85) and more REC (0.4 mm 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66). The only trial comparing EMD with a bioactive ceramic filler found statistically significantly more REC (-1.60 mm, 95% CI -2.74 to - 0.46) at the EMD treated sites.
Conclusions: One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.1 mm) and reduced PPD (0.9 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that the results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD. Bone substitutes may be associated with less REC than EMD.
Keywords: bone grafting, enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration, intrabony defect, randomised controlled clinical trial, systematic review
PubMed ID (PMID): 20467603Pages 267-281, Language: English
Purpose: To evaluate whether short (5 mm) dental implants could be a suitable alternative to augmentation and placement of longer implants (10 mm) in posterior atrophic jaws.
Materials and methods: Thirty partially edentulous patients with bilateral posterior edentulism were included: 15 patients having 5 to 7 mm of residual crestal height above the mandibular canal, and 15 patients having 4 to 6 mm of residual crestal height below the maxillary sinus and bone thickness of at least 8 mm measured on a CT scan. The patients were randomised either to receive one to three submerged 5-mm-long Rescue implants (Megagen) or 10-mm-long implants placed in augmented bone according to a split-mouth design. Mandibles were augmented with interpositional anorganic bovine bone blocks (Bio-Oss) and maxillae with granular Bio-Oss placed through a lateral window under the lifted sinus membrane. Resorbable barriers were used to cover the grafted sites. Grafts were left to heal for 4 months before placing the implants using a submerged technique. Four months after implant placement, provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses were delivered and replaced 4 months later by definitive screw-retained metal-ceramic prostheses. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, time needed to fully recover mental nerve function (only for mandibular implants) and patient preference assessed 1 month after loading. All patients were followed up to delivery of the final restorations (4 months after loading).
Results: A systematic deviation from the research protocol occurred: the operator used another implant system (EZ Plus, Megagen) for implants 10 mm or longer with a diameter of 4 mm at the augmented sites. No patients dropped out. In 5 patients of the augmented group (all mandibles), there was not enough height to place 10-mm-long implants as planned and shorter implants (7 and 8.5 mm) were used instead. In each group, one prosthesis could not be placed when planned because an implant was found to be mobile at abutment connection: one 5 mm maxillary implant and one 8.5 mm mandibular implant in the augmented group. Five complications occurred: two in the augmented group (one maxillary sinus perforation and one mandibular wound dehiscence after implant placement possibly associated with the failure of one implant) versus three maxillary sinus perforations in the 5-mm-long implant group. The difference was not statistically significant. No patient suffered from permanent disruption of alveolar inferior nerve function, however, significantly more patients had paraesthesia for up to 3 days in the augmented group. There was no statistically significant difference in patient preference with the majority of patients expressing no preference for which treatment they received, finding both of them acceptable.
Keywords: bovine anorganic bone, inlay graft, short dental implants, sinus lift, vertical augmentation
PubMed ID (PMID): 20467604Pages 283-292, Language: English
Purpose: to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 g amoxicillin orally with identical placebo tablets 1 hour before implant placement when placing single implants in bone types II and III.
Material and methods: 12 private dental clinics in Spain agreed to participate in this trial. A total of 105 patients were recruited. Patients were randomised for consumption orally of 2g amoxicillin or identical placebo tablets. Only patients needing single implants were included. Outcome measures were post-operative infections, adverse events and implant failures. Characteristics of the saprophytic flora were also studied in all patients. Patients were seen 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively.
Results: A total of 105 patients (n = 52 in the amoxicillin group and n = 53 in the placebo group) were evaluated and none were excluded from the study at 3 months. Six post-operative infections occurred and two implants were lost in each group. There were no statistically significant differences for postoperative infection, adverse events, implant failures and the characteristics of saprophytic flora between groups. The use of amoxicillin did not either alter or modify the characteristics of the saprophytic flora nor provoke remarkable side effects.
Conclusions: Antibiotic prophylaxis may not be needed when placing single implants in patients with bone types II and III.
Keywords: amoxicillin, antibiotic prophylaxis, dental implants, multicentre randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial, post-operative infection
PubMed ID (PMID): 20467605Pages 293-306, Language: English
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of two different techniques to augment maxillary sinuses using a lateral window approach: rigid synthetic resorbable barriers (Inion) versus granular anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss).
Materials and methods: Ten partially edentulous patients having bilaterally 1 to 5 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm bone width below the maxillary sinuses, as measured on computed tomography (CT) scans, were randomised to receive two different 2-stage sinus lift procedures using the lateral window approach. In one side, the sinus lining was raised by placing a resorbable rigid Inion barrier without any bone substitute whereas the contralateral side was loosely packed with 100% granular Bio-Oss. After 6 months, 2 to 3 implants were inserted at each side and submerged for 4 months. Implants were loaded with provisional acrylic prostheses and replaced after 4 months, by definitive screwretained metal-ceramic prostheses. Outcome measures were: time necessary to complete the augmentation procedure, bone gain on CT scans, histomorphometry, any complication, implant and prosthetic failures, and clinician and patient preference assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. All patients were followed up to 5 months after loading.
Results: No patient dropped out. There was no significant difference in time to complete the augmentation procedure (19.8 minutes for Inion versus 20.5 for Bio-Oss). After 6 months, both interventions gained bone in a highly statistically significant way (14.4 mm for Inion versus 14.1 mm for Bio- Oss) with no significant differences between the procedures. Histologically, more new bone formed at Bio-Oss treated sites (36.1% versus 24.2%), the difference being highly statistically significant (P = 0.002). There were no differences in complications between groups (2 perforations of the maxillary lining at Inion treated sites versus 1 at a Bio-Oss site), however, in one of the patients where a perforation occurred at the Inion site, at implant placement, the sinus was two-thirds filled with soft tissue and the site was successfully retreated with Bio-Oss. No implant failed. The clinician preferred Bio-Oss because it was simpler to handle. There were no statistically significant differences in patient preference 1 month after surgery and 1 month after delivery of definitive prostheses: 8 patients had no preference while 2 preferred the Bio-Oss treated side.
Conclusions: Although bone grafting is not needed to augment atrophic maxillary sinuses since it is sufficient to keep space with a rigid barrier, bone was histologically more mature and appeared to be clinically harder when using Bio-Oss. Moreover, it was judged simpler to fill sinuses with a bone substitute than to position a rigid barrier for maintaining space.
Keywords: anorganic bovine bone, resorbable barrier, sinus lift
Pages 307-309, Language: English
This section presents brief reviews of articles on dental implants that are of special interest, to help readers develop skills for research, analysis and the evaluation of scientific publications.