Introduction: Osseointegration are often suffering from oral conditions, especially, the micro gap at the implant–abutment connection represents a site for bacterial plaque aggregation, leading to increased inflammatory cells and causing peri-implantitis. Aim: The aim of this narrative review was to describe the different kinds of implant–abutment connections and their ability to reduce bacterial leakage and thus prevent peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: The following databases were consulted: Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Research gate and a total of 528 articles were found. After reading the abstract and titles, 473 items were excluded. The remaining articles (n = 55) were assessed for full-text eligibility. Thirty-three studies were included in the review. Results and Conclusions: We selected 22 clinical trials and 11 reviews, examining a total sample of 2110 implants. From the review, it was clear that there exists a relationship between the implant–abutment interface and bacterial leakage. All the connections presented an amount of micro-gap and bacterial micro-leakage, though conical and mixed connection systems seemed to behave better. Moreover, both connections seemed to have a better load distribution and the mixed system also had anti-rotational properties which are very useful during the positioning of the prosthesis.

Objective: To investigate the action of osteopathic manipulative treatment on the muscular activity of the stomatognathic apparatus by using surface electromyography (sEMG). Material and Methods: Surface electromyography (sEMG) was performed on the masseter and anterior temporalis muscles of 120 subjects (73 F; 47 M), both at time T0 and T2. The sample was divided into three randomized groups of 40 subjects each: control, placebo, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). In the T1 interval between the two evaluations, the control group was not treated, the placebo group underwent a placebo treatment, and the OMT group underwent manipulative treatment. The mean value of each measurement and its coefficient of variation, between time T0 and T2, were calculated for both the intragroup (OMT, placebo, control) and the intergroup (OMT-placebo, OMT-control). Outcomes: In 40% of the subjects, statistically significant improvements were highlighted in the OMT. Whereas, the statistically significant results of the placebo and control groups were 7.5% and 17.5%, respectively, of which more than 75% moved away from the physiological range, showing a worsening of the muscular activity. This analysis showed statistically significant variations (p ≤ 0.05) in the OMT group compared to the placebo and the control groups. Conclusions: OMT determines variations of the activity of masticatory muscles.

No abstract