Charalampos Kaddas

The aim of this literature review was to present minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs) for the regeneration of intrabony defects and the impact of these surgical procedures on clinical outcomes. Less invasive surgical procedures lead to a more uneventful postoperative healing and reduce patient morbidity. The introduction of these techniques together with the use of magnification tools enables gentle tissue manipulation with performing minimal incisions and flap elevations in the field of surgical treatment of intrabony defects. Minimally invasive surgical techniques induce minor surgical trauma and improve the wound stability with favorable results in terms of clinical outcomes and the patient's comfort. The defect anatomy, patient-centered factors and the various biomaterials applied are considered. Recent evidence concludes that the adjunctive use of regenerative materials seems to have a less determinant effect on the clinical performance of minimally invasive surgical techniques. In addition, more studies are required to investigate the clinical efficacy of these surgical techniques in the treatment of intrabony defects in comparison with the conventional papilla preservation flap techniques.

Implant soft tissue dehiscences compromise not only the aesthetics of the supported restorations but implant survival in the long run. The aim of this narrative review was to briefly present the causative factors of buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences (PSTDs), how these are classified, and the current therapeutic approaches. Implant malposition and the thin peri-implant phenotype are the two major determinants for the occurrence of PSTDs, but other risk factors have also been identified. The most common surgical procedure for treating PSTDs is the split-thickness coronally advanced flap combined with either a connective tissue graft or acellular dermal matrix materials. However, depending on the class and subtype of the dehiscence, the combination of surgical techniques with modifications in the restoration may further ameliorate the final result. In general, within a five-year follow-up period, most techniques lead to a satisfactory aesthetic result, although full coverage of the implant/abutment surface is not always achievable, especially in more extended lesions.