AimTo evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri‐implantitis.Materials and MethodsTwo hundred and forty randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history were collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri‐implant health and diseases. Peri‐implantitis was defined as the presence of BoP/SoP together with radiographic bone levels (BL) ≧2 mm. An intermediate peri‐implant health category between peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis was also identified, defined by the presence of BoP/SoP together with 1 mm ≦BL < 2 mm. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri‐implantitis.ResultsNinety‐nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalences of pre‐periimplantitis and of peri‐implantitis were, respectively, 31.3% and 56.6% at patient‐level, while 31.7% and 27.9% at implant level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for peri‐implantitis: smoking (OR = 3.59; 95% CI: 1.52–8.45), moderate/severe periodontitis (OR = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.20–6.36), <16 remaining teeth (OR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.05–4.73), plaque (OR = 3.49; 95% CI: 1.13–10.75), implant malposition (too vestibular: OR = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.17–6.93), implant brand (Nobel vs. Straumann: OR = 4.41;95% CI: 1.76–11.09), restoration type (bridge vs. single crown: OR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.19–5.12), and trauma as reason of tooth loss (vs. caries: OR = 6.51; 95% CI: 1.45–29.26). Conversely, the following factors were identified as protective indicators: interproximal flossing/brushing (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11–0.68), proton pump inhibitors (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.90), and anticoagulants (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.56).ConclusionsPeri‐implant diseases are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university‐based population. Several factors were identified as risk‐ and protective‐ indicators of peri‐implantitis.

Aim There are no nationally representative epidemiological studies available reporting on the different recession types according to the 2018 classification system or focusing on the aesthetic zone. The aims of this cross‐sectional study were (a) to provide estimates on the prevalence, severity and extent of mid‐buccal GRs according to the 2018 classification and (b) to identify their risk indicators in the adult U.S. population from the NHANES database. Materials and Methods Data from 10,676 subjects, representative of 143.8 millions of adults, were retrieved from the NHANES 2009–2014 database. GR prevalence was defined as the presence of at least one mid‐buccal GR ≥1 mm. GRs were categorized following the 2018 World Workshop classification system (RT1, RT2, RT3) and according to different severity cut‐offs. An analysis for GR risk indicators was also performed, selecting subjects without periodontitis. Results The patient‐level prevalence of mid‐buccal GRs (all types) was 91.6%, while it decreased to 70.7% when considering only the aesthetic zone. When focusing on RT1 GRs, the patient‐level prevalence (whole mouth) was 12.4%, while it was 5.8% considering only the aesthetic zone. The majority of RT1 GRs were considered as mild (1–2 mm). The whole‐mouth patient‐level prevalence of RT2 and RT3 GRs was 88.8% and 55.0%, respectively. Age (35–49 years), gender (female), ethnicity (non–Hispanic Whites), last dental visit (>6 months before), tooth type (incisors) and the arch (mandible) resulted as risk indicators associated with the presence of RT1 GR. Conclusions Mid‐buccal GRs affect almost the entire US population. Age, gender, ethnicity, dental care exposure, tooth type and arch were identified as risk indicators for RT1 GRs.

Aim. To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods. 240 randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history was collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri-implantitis defined as BoP/SoP and bone levels ≥2 mm. Results. 99 patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalence of pre-periimplantitis and of peri-implantitis were respectively 56.6% and 31.3% at patient-level, while 27.9% and 31.7% at implant-level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis: smoking (OR=3.59; 95%CI:1.52-8.45), moderate/severe periodontitis (OR=2.77; 95%CI:1.20-6.36), <16 remaining teeth (OR=2.23; 95%CI:1.05-4.73), plaque (OR=3.49; 95%CI:1.13-10.75), implant malposition (too vestibular: OR=2.85; 95%CI:1.17-6.93), implant brand (Nobel vs. Straumann: OR=4.41;95% CI:1.76-11.09), restoration type (bridge: OR=2.47; 95%CI:1.19-5.12), and trauma as reason of tooth loss (OR=6.51;95% CI:1.45-29.26). Conversely, the following factors were identified as protective indicators: interproximal flossing/brushing (OR=0.27; 95%CI:0.11-0.68), proton pump inhibitors (OR=0.08; 95%CI:0.01-0.90) and anticoagulants (OR=0.08; 95%CI:0.01-0.56). Conclusions. Peri-implant diseases are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university-based population. Several factors were identified as risk- and protective-indicators of peri-implantitis.

BackgroundWhen considering dental implant rehabilitation in atrophic posterior sectors, the maxillary sinuses must be evaluated in detail. Knowledge of the anatomical variations and of the potential lesions found in these structures conditions the outcome of sinus lift procedures and therefore of the dental implants. A systematic review is made to determine the frequency of anatomical variations and pathological findings in maxillary sinuses among patients subjected to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).Material and MethodsA PubMed (MEDLINE) literature search was made of articles published up until 20 December 2015. The systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The quality of the studies included in the review was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS).ResultsThe combinations of search terms resulted in a list of 3482 titles. Twenty-three studies finally met the inclusion criteria and were entered in the systematic review, comprising a total of 11,971 patients. The most common anatomical variations were pneumatization and sinus septa. The prevalence of maxillary sinus disease ranged from 7.5% to 66%. The most common pathological findings of the maxillary sinus were mucosal thickening, sinusitis and sinus opacification.ConclusionsAlthough the main indication of CBCT of the maxillary sinus in dentistry is sinus floor elevation/treatment planning and evaluation prior to dental implant placement, this imaging modality is increasingly also used for endodontic and periodontal purposes. There is no consensus regarding the cutoff point beyond which mucosal thickening of the maxillary sinus should be regarded as pathological, and the definition of maxillary sinusitis moreover varies greatly in the scientific literature. In this regard, international consensus is required in relation to these concepts, with a clear distinction between healthy and diseased maxillary sinuses. Key words:Maxillary sinus, cone beam computed tomography, dental implant, maxillary sinus floor augmentation, sinus membrane, sinus floor elevation.

SUMMARYGuided bone regeneration (GBR) is a well-established and generally predictable method for repairing alveolar ridge defects and preparing edentulous sites for implant placement. Standard GBR involves filling the space underneath a membrane with autogenous bone or a mixture composed of autogenous bone particles and allogeneic bone tissue or heterologous biomaterials. The use of a barrier membrane for GBR has sometimes been associated with complications, however -reportedly involving exposure, infection, and collapse -and the non-resorbable types of membrane seem to be involved more often than the resorbable solutions. Such complications may be severe enough to defeat the object of the GBR procedure. A non-resorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane has recently been designed specifically for use in bone-augmentation procedures that seems to assure a good bone regeneration process even when the membrane is exposed to the oral cavity. This case report describes an exposure of a d-PTFE membrane occurring after a maxillary GBR procedure and how it was overcome successfully, enabling implants insertion.