Background The socket seal surgery (SSS) technique is a common alternative for the management of the post-extraction sockets that requires a primary closure of the wound to promote proper regeneration and ridge preservation. Objective To learn about the effect of different SSS techniques on alveolar ridge preservation Material and methods Two independent and calibrated reviewers conducted an electronic search in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science for randomized clinical trials (RCT) published up to June 2020. The evaluation of the risk of bias in the included studies was carried out following the Cochrane manual for interventions of systematic reviews, version 5.1.0. A meta-analysis of ridge width changes at − 1, − 3, and − 5 mm cutoff points from bone crest was conducted using a random-effects model. The risk of types I and II errors against accrued data was appraised obtaining the required information size using a trial sequential analysis package (TSA). Results A total of 135 sockets located in the esthetic zone were evaluated with a minimum of a 3-month follow-up after tooth extraction in 6 RCTs. The evaluated SSS techniques were free gingival graft (FGG), collagen matrix (CM), collagen sponge (CS), acellular dermal matrix (ADM), and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFEm). The FGG in sockets without bone filling showed significant results in preserving both buccal and lingual bone height (− 1.42 mm in the experimental group versus − 0.01 in the control group). The comparison of CM and FGG with bone filling did not show clinical differences in terms of dimensional bone changes. No clinical differences were found in either width or gingival thickness when comparing CM and CS. The meta-analyses of RW changes comparing CM versus FGG showed no significant differences, but a trend for lessening horizontal reduction at − 1, − 3, and − 5 mm in favor of FGG. The TSA showed that accrued data did not reach the required information size, and more evidence is required for clinical significance inferences. Conclusions There are several predictable SSS techniques to improve clinical results in ridge preservation. More clinical studies in the form of clinical trials are required to demonstrate the superiority of one technique over another.

Aim To establish trends in Implant Dentistry in Latin America in the COVID‐19 pandemic. Material and methods A steering committee and an advisory group of experts in Implant Dentistry were selected among eighteen countries. An open‐ended questionnaire by Delphi methodology was validated including 64 questions, divided in 7 topics, concerning the various trends in dental implantology. The survey was conducted in two rounds, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. The questionnaires were completed on August 2020, and the online meeting conference was held on September 2020. The final prediction was developed through consensus by a selected group of experts. Results A total of 197 experts from Latin America answered the first and second questionnaire. In the first round, the established threshold for consensus (65%) was achieved in 30 questions (46.87%). In the second round, performed on average 45 days later, this level was achieved in 47 questions (73.43%). Consensus was completely reached on the item “Diagnostic” (100%), the field with the lowest consensus was “Demand for treatment with dental implants” (37.5%). Conclusions The present study in Latin America has provided relevant and useful information on the predictions in the education and practice of Implant Dentistry in the COVID‐19 era. The consensus points toward a great confidence of clinicians in the biosecurity protocols used to minimize the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. It is foreseen as an important change in education, with introduction of virtual reality and other simulation technologies in implant training.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality and the consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Periodontology. An electronic search was conducted in two databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, eight CPGs databases, and home pages of scientific societies in Periodontology up to April 2022. Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument. In addition, we evaluated the consistency of the recommendations. Eleven CPGs were included, and the topics developed focused on prevention, diagnosis, risk factors, surgical and non-surgical periodontal treatment, antimicrobial therapy, root coverage, and maintenance. We found that the AGREE domains 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and 5 (Applicability) obtained the lowest scores. Domains 1 (Scope and purpose), 3 (Rigor of development) and 4 (Clarity of presentation) obtained the highest scores among the evaluated CPGs. The clinical recommendations for treatment of periodontal diseases were mostly consistent. Overall, the quality of CPGs used in periodontics was high. There was consistency of recommendations in specific fields. These findings may help researchers to promote CPGs focused on different fields of periodontics that have not yet been developed. Furthermore, the clinician will be able to make better clinical decisions.