No abstract

Introduction: The lips and the mouth play an indispensable role in vocalization, mastication and face aesthetics. Various noxious factors may alter and destruct the original structure, and appearance of the lips and the anatomical area surrounding the mouth. The application of hyaluronic acid (HA) may serve as a safe method for lip regeneration. Although a number of studies exist for HA effectiveness and safety, its beneficial effect is not well-established.Aim: The present meta-analysis and systematic review was performed to investigate the effectiveness of HA on lip augmentation. We also investigated the types and nature of adverse effects (AEs) of HA application.Methods: We reported our meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42018102899. We performed the systematic literature search in CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series and case reports were included. The untransformed proportion (random-effects, DerSimonian-Laird method) of responder rate to HA injection was calculated. For treatment related AEs descriptive statistics were used.Results: The systematic literature search yielded 32 eligible records for descriptive statistics and 10 records for quantitative synthesis. The results indicated that the overall estimate of responders (percentage of subjects with increased lip fullness by one point or higher) was 91% (ES = 0.91, 95% CI:0.85−0.96) 2 months after injection. The rate of responders was 74% (ES = 0.74, 95% CI:0.66−0.82) and 46% (ES = 0.46, 95% CI:0.28−0.65) after 6 and 12 months, respectively. We included 1,496 participants for estimating the event rates of AEs. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were tenderness (88.8%), injection site swelling (74.3%) and bruising (39.5%). Rare AEs included foreign body granulomas (0.6%), herpes labialis (0.6%) and angioedema (0.3%).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis revealed that lip augmentation with injectable HA is an efficient method for increasing lip fullness for at least up to 6 months after augmentation. Moreover, we found that most AEs of HA treatment were mild or moderate, but a small number of serious adverse effects were also found. In conclusion, further well-designed RCTs are still needed to make the presently available evidence stronger.

The European Union (EU) directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purpose focused on reducing the number of animals and refinement of breeding. Animal studies are necessary to protect human health. Lots of animal models exist to study bone regeneration, but a reliable, well reproducible, and relatively inexpensive model with the possibility for multiple testing in the same animal is still missing. Rats may serve as good models for this due to the small animal size and good cost/benefit ratio. The present study aimed to develop a novel rat caudal vertebrae critical size defect model for bone regeneration and implant osseointegration studies The study was performed using Wistar rats with weight from 380 to 450 g. An incision was made on the dorsal side of the tail. After skin and muscles retractions, the vertebrae were exposed. Critical size defects for bone tissue engineering or implant placements for titanium body experiments were possible in each of the first four caudal vertebrae. Micro-computed tomography (CT) and histology were used to detect bone growth. There was no bone formation in the defects after 1 or 2 months of healing. When a calcium phosphate biomaterial was used (Bio-Oss; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland), a good stability of the material in the defect was noted and bone growth was visible after 1 or 2 months. Results based on implant placement showed good primary stability after 3 months of healing. MicroCT showed integrated implant position through the vertebra. These results suggest that the rat caudal vertebrae may serve as a good new model for studying bone regeneration and implant osseointegration with the possibility of multiple testing within the same experimental animal and the potential to decrease number of experimental animals.

ObjectivesTo evaluate long‐term clinical and radiographic outcomes of dental implants placed after lateral window sinus augmentation utilizing the sagittal sandwich technique.Materials and MethodsPatients treated with sinus augmentation were included in this retrospective case‐series study. The surgical procedure was performed with particulate autogenous bone‐ and anorganic bovine bone‐derived mineral (3:7 ratio). Implants were grouped based on baseline residual alveolar ridge height: group S (residual alveolar ridge height of 0.1–3.5 mm), group M (height of 3.5‐7mm), and group C (native bone). Radiographs were taken at baseline (abutment installation) and annually throughout the 10‐year follow‐up.ResultsA total of 86 patients (92 sinus lifts) and 209 implants were included. Ten sinus membrane perforations were recorded (11% incidence), and graft infections occurred in 3 cases (3.2% incidence). During the 10‐year follow‐up, 3 implants (1.4%) failed. No significant differences in the mean implant marginal bone loss (MBL) between the three groups were found after 1‐, 2‐, and 5‐year follow‐up (p > .05). At 10 years, group C exhibited more MBL than group M with a mean difference of −0.53 mm (p = .01). After 10 years, MK III implants displayed significantly more bone loss in native bone than those in augmented bone with a mean difference of 0.48 mm (p = .02). Five patients and 7 implants developed peri‐implantitis with no significant differences between the groups (p = .570).ConclusionImplant placement after two‐stage sinus grafting utilizing the sagittal sandwich technique is a relatively safe and predictable procedure with minimal complications and MBL after 10‐year follow‐up.

Introduction Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190. Methods The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I 2 and chi 2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively. Results Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06–0.67; I 2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09–0.74; I 2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I 2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use. Conclusions This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.