Treatment with a combination of PRP and DFDBA led to a significantly greater clinical improvement in intrabony periodontal defects compared to DFDBA with saline. No statistically significant differences were observed in the hard tissue response between the two treatment groups, which confirmed that PRP had no effect on hard tissue fill or gain in new hard tissue formation.

The null hypothesis of no difference in failure rates, complications and bone level between implants that were loaded immediately or early at 3 years cannot be rejected in this randomized clinical trial.

Gingival AGEs are increased in both type 1 and type 2 DM-associated periodontitis; however, the clinical parameter that determines their accumulation, and therefore their degree of influence on the development of DM-associated periodontitis, may be the duration of DM.

Despite the limited data, high C/I ratio may be related to some prosthetic failures. Unfavorable C/I ratio does not affect biological complications and implant failure.

The aim of this randomized double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and demineralised freeze-dried bone allografts (DFDBA) with DFDBA alone for the treatment of human periodontal intrabony defects at 12 months post-surgery. Fifty-six intrabony osseous defects in 56 periodontis patients were randomly assigned to the test group (DFDBA + EMD) or the control group (DFDBA) for periodontal treatment. Clinical and radiographic measurements were made at the baseline and after 12 months. Compared to baseline, the 12-month results indicated that both treatment modalities resulted in significant changes in all clinical parameters (gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession; P < 0.05) and radiographic parameters (hard tissue fill (HTF) and bone depth reduction; P <0.05). Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found in the test group compared to the control group in PD reduction (5.0 mm vs. 4.0 mm; P < 0.05), CAL gain (4.0 mm vs. 3.25 mm), and HTF (4.0 mm vs. 3.5 mm; P < 0.05). In the test group, 25% of sites gained > 4 mm of CAL, while in the control group, 7.1% of sites gained > 4 mm of CAL. Both treatments showed a good soft and hard periodontal tissue response. At 12 months post-surgery, the combined use of DFDBA and EMD seemed to produce a statistically significant improvement of PD reduction, CAL gain, and HTF.