AimTo compare the effectiveness of two‐ridge preservation treatments.Materials and MethodsForty subjects with extraction sockets exhibiting substantial buccal dehiscences were enrolled and randomized across 10 standardized centres. Treatments were demineralized allograft plus reconstituted and cross‐linked collagen membrane (DFDBA + RECXC) or deproteinized bovine bone mineral with collagen plus native, bilayer collagen membrane (DBBMC + NBCM). Socket dimensions were recorded at baseline and 6 months. Wound closure and soft tissue inflammation were followed post‐operatively, and biopsies were retrieved for histomorphometric analysis at 6 months.ResultsPrimary endpoint: at 6 months, extraction socket horizontal measures were significantly greater for DBBMC + NBCM (average 1.76 mm greater, p = 0.0256). Secondary and Exploratory endpoints: (1) lingual and buccal vertical bone changes were not significantly different between the two treatment modalities, (2) histomorphometric % new bone and % new bone + graft were not significantly different, but significantly more graft remnants remained for DBBMC; (3) at 1 month, incision line gaps were significantly greater and more incision lines remained open for DFDBA + RECXC; (4) higher inflammation at 1 week tended to correlate with lower ridge preservation results; and (5) deeper socket morphologies with thinner bony walls correlated with better ridge preservation. Thirty‐seven of 40 sites had sufficient ridge dimension for implant placement at 6 months; the remainder were DFDBA + RECXC sites.Conclusion DBBMC + NBCM provided better soft tissue healing and ridge preservation for implant placement. Deeper extraction sockets with higher and more intact bony walls responded more favourably to ridge preservation therapy.

A biologic is a therapeutic agent with biological activity that is administered to achieve an enhanced regenerative or reparative effect. The use of biologics has progressively become a core component of contemporary periodontal practice. However, some questions remain about their safety, indications, and effectiveness in specific clinical scenarios. Given their availability for routine clinical use and the existing amount of related evidence, the goal of this American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) best evidence consensus (BEC) was to provide a state‐of‐the‐art, evidence‐based perspective on the therapeutic application of autologous blood‐derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor BB (rhPDGF‐BB), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP‐2). A panel of experts with extensive knowledge on the science and clinical application of biologics was convened. Three systematic reviews covering the areas of periodontal plastic surgery, treatment of infrabony defects, and alveolar ridge preservation/reconstruction and implant site development were conducted a priori and provided the foundation for the deliberations. The expert panel debated the merits of published data and exchanged experiential information to formulate evidence‐based consensus statements and recommendations for clinical practice and future research. Based on an analysis of the current evidence and expert opinion, the panel concluded that the appropriate use of biologics in periodontal practice is generally safe and provides added benefits to conventional treatment approaches. However, therapeutic benefits and risks range based on the specific biologics used as well as patient‐related local and systemic factors. Given the limited evidence available for some indications (e.g., gingival augmentation therapy, alveolar ridge preservation/reconstruction, and implant site development), future clinical studies that can expand the knowledge base on the clinical use of biologics in periodontal practice are warranted.

This prospective study assessed the dual-curing self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative Surefil one. The restorations were placed and reviewed by dental practitioners who are members of a practice-based research network in the United States. Seven practitioners filled 60 cavities (20 class I, 19 class II and 21 class V) in 41 patients with Surefil one without adhesive, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Patients were also contacted to report postoperative hypersensitivity one to four weeks after placement. The only patient that showed moderate hypersensitivity after 1 year had previously reported symptoms that were unlikely associated to the class I molar restoration. One class II restoration in a fractured maxillary molar was partially lost. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition resulting in an annual failure rate of 2%. Color match showed the lowest number of acceptable scores (88%) revealing significant changes over time (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were found for the other criteria (P > 0.05). The novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed clinically acceptable results in stress-bearing class I and II as well as non-retentive class V cavities at 1-year recall.