Objectives: To describe the methodology of the "L-shape" technique in guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement and report on the clinical, esthetic, and patient satisfaction outcomes up to 14 years of follow-up.Material and methods: Fourteen patients treated with the "L-shape" technique were included in this retrospective study. The L-shape technique was performed by trimming and placing a soft-type bone block made of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen at the buccal-occlusal aspect of the dental implant. The remaining gaps were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral granules and the augmented area was covered with a collagen membrane. The following parameters were recorded: probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), keratinized tissue width (KT) and marginal bone level (MBL). Esthetic outcomes were assessed according to the pink esthetic score (PES) and the white esthetic score (WES). Patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of a numerical rating scale (0-10). The stability of each augmented site was assessed by measuring the volumetric changes between baseline (crown delivery) and the respective follow-up.Results: A total of 13 maxillary incisors and one maxillary canine in 14 patients were included. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 ± 3.8 years. PES values amounted to 10.7 ± 3.3 and WES to 8.8 ± 1.4. Patient satisfaction reached 9.4 ± 0.8. Mean PD at implant sites were 2.7 ± 0.7 mm while BOP amounted to 15.0 ± 0.2% and Pl to 5.0 ± 0.0%. Volumetric analyses revealed minimal changes at the augmented sites irrespective of the region of interest. Radiographic MBL remained relatively stable.Conclusions: Within the limitation of the present study the L-shape augmentation procedure seems to be a reliable technique when performing GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone. Outcomes encompassed stable clinical and esthetic results accompanied by high levels of patient satisfaction. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm possible benefits of the L-shape technique over traditional approaches.

Objectives: To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome).Material and methods: Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. Results:The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387).Conclusions: Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow.

Personalized Oral Healthcare has recently become the new trend word in medicine and dentistry. In this context, saliva diagnostics using various biomarkers seem to be the gateway to personalized dental diagnostics and therapy. But the terminology is not (yet) uniformly defined, furthermore it is unclear to what extent which salivary markers play a relevant role in the therapeutic decision making. In this Scoping Review, an electronic search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases using medical subject headings (MESH terms) “saliva”, “biomarker”, “personality/persons”, and “dentistry”. Only human studies were included, in which repeated salivary measurements were performed to analyze monitoring effects with at least ten patients per group. PRISMA-ScR and Tricco guidelines were followed: (i) to examine what salivary biomarkers have been explored in terms of personalized oral healthcare and precision dentistry, (ii) to investigate the clinical relevance for oral health and its correlation to systemic health, and (iii) to summarize an outlook for future developments based on these results. Out of 899 studies, a total of 57 were included for data extraction in this Scoping Review, mainly focusing on periodontal therapy and patient monitoring. Salivary biomarkers have shown the potential to change the field of dentistry in all dental disciplines as a key for personalized workflows. The increasing interest in dental research is obvious, demonstrated by the growing number of publications in recent years. At this time, however, the predominant discipline is periodontology, which allows biomarker-based monitoring of the disease prevention and progression. The studies included showed heterogeneous methods using manifolds biomarkers. Therefore, no uniformly accepted concept can be presented today. Further clinical research with well-defined outcomes including standardized procedures is necessary.

AimTo compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri‐implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs).MethodsSixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsThe median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and −0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri‐implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri‐implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient‐reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.