Gisela Cristina Vianna Camolesi

Background: Immediate post-extraction dental implants are increasingly popular, but ensuring primary stability and managing peri-implant tissues remain challenging. Implant macro-design significantly impacts stability and osseointegration. This study used Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to evaluate changes in alveolar bone following immediate placement of two implant designs, System 2P and Dura-Vit 3P, which feature semi-conical microgeometry and apical self-tapping portions for improved stability and bone regeneration. Methods: With a 1:1 allocation ratio, the current investigation was a two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial. Patients qualified if they required immediate dental replacements with adequate buccal bone support. Two types of implants were placed: System 2P (cylindrical shape) and Dura-Vit 3P (more conical shape, with a particular architecture of threads). Following the intervention, CBCT was performed both immediately (T1) and six months later (T2). Measurements of CBCT horizontal bone level at apical, medial, and bevel height on the palatal/lingual and vestibular sides as well as the buccal vertical gap were the primary results. Complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ), and torque insertion were evaluated. The Mann–Whitney test was used to determine time-based differences within each group, while the Wilcoxon test was used to estimate differences between groups. The impact of baseline marginal gap dimension and gingival biotype was estimated using multiple regressions. Results: Thirty patients were recruited and randomized to treatments, with two lost to follow-up. One System 2P implant failed and two patients of the Dura-Vit 3P group dropped out. At T1, the Dura-Vit 3P group exhibited a lower mean insertion torque and a higher ISQ than the System 2P group. Furthermore, the Dura-Vit 3P group showed lower bone reduction compared to System 2P at horizontal and vertical measurements with significant differences for the vestibular and palatal base and medial level (p-values < 0.05). Regression models indicated a positive effect of thick biotypes on gap filling and dimensional bone reduction. No complications were observed in both groups. Conclusions: The Dura-Vit 3P implant exhibits high primary stability when inserted in post-extraction sites. Furthermore, this kind of implant stimulates higher bone stability on both the palatal and buccal side when compared to the System 2P implant. The present findings support the evidence that the macro-design of the Dura-Vit 3P implant promotes increased primary stability and reduces bone loss.

Background: The surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars is routine in oral and maxillofacial surgery and common postoperative complications are widely reported in the literature. Therefore, this prospective split-mouth study aims to compare the postoperative sequelae of piezoelectric surgery versus conventional surgery of the lower third molar, focusing on pain and swelling. Methodology: In total, 41 patients were treated under local anesthesia and surgical removal on one side of their mouth was performed using conventional rotary surgery (micromotor) while the other side’s was by piezosurgery, with an interval of 15 days from the previous procedure (82 extraction sites); in addition, pain and swelling analyses were conducted. Results: The pain analysis demonstrated a median of one day of pain in patients treated with piezoelectric surgery compared to two days with conventional surgery (p < 0.001). The probability of not feeling pain was greater in sites treated with experimental surgery on the first and second days (p < 0.001). The swelling was worse in places treated with the conventional method, with the most significant difference being the distance between the angle of the mandible and the upper lip vermilion on both days and the more subtle difference between the angle of the mandible and the anterior nasal spine on the seventh day. Conclusions: When a piezosurgical unit is used, according to the literature, is well known that it takes more time to perform the surgical extraction of third molars. Despite that, our results show that it causes less pain postoperatively, with faster improvement and a quicker reduction in swelling compared to conventional surgery.

The O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene is a critical guardian of genomic integrity. MGMT methylation in diffuse gliomas serves as an important determinant of patients’ prognostic outcomes, more specifically in glioblastomas (GBMs). In GBMs, the absence of MGMT methylation, known as MGMT promoter unmethylation, often translates into a more challenging clinical scenario, tending to present resistance to chemotherapy and a worse prognosis. A pyrosequencing (PSQ) technique was used to analyze MGMT methylation status at different cut-offs (5%, 9%, and 11%) in a sample of 78 patients diagnosed with IDH-wildtype grade 4 GBM. A retrospective analysis was provided to collect clinicopathological and prognostic data. A statistical analysis was used to establish an association between methylation status and treatment response (TR) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The patients with methylated MGMT status experienced progressive disease rates of 84.6%, 80%, and 78.4% at the respective cut-offs of 5%, 9%, and 11%. The number was considerably higher when considering unmethylated patients, as all patients (100%), regardless of the cut-off, presented progressive disease. Regarding disease-specific survival (DSS), the Hazard Ratio (HR) was HR = 0.74 (0.45–1.24; p = 0.251); HR = 0.82 (0.51–1.33; p = 0.425); and HR = 0.79 (0.49–1.29; p = 0.350), respectively. Our study concludes that there is an association between MGMT unmethylation and worse TR and DSS. The 9% cut-off demonstrated a greater potential for patient survival as a function of time, which may shed light on the future need for standardization of MGMT methylation positivity parameters in PSQ.

Purpose To investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on the consequences of the main complications, such as osteoradionecrosis and peri-implantitis. Methods An electronic search conducted by PRISMA protocol was performed. Full texts were carefully assessed, and data were assimilated into a tabular form for discussion and consensus among the expert panel. The quality assessment and the risk of bias are verified by Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) and The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results A total of 452 records were identified in the based on our PICOs strategy and after screening, 19 articles were included in the descriptive analysis of the review. Totaling 473 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated bone, and 31.6% of the patients were over 60 years of age. 57.9%) performed implant placement in a period of 12 months or more after the ending of radiotherapy. Only 5 studies had a follow-up period longer than 5 years after implant placement, of which three were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis of 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in irradiated bone was assessed; a random effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 93.13% (95% CI: 87.20–99.06; p < 0.001), and in the 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in non-irradiated bone was analysed; a fixed effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 98.52% survival (95% CI: 97.56–99.48, p < 0.001). Conclusions Survival rates of implants placed in irradiated bone are clinically satisfactory after a follow-up of 5 years, with a fewer percentage than in implants placed in non-irradiated bone after metanalyses performed.

Purpose: to investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on the consequences of the main complications, such as osteoradionecrosis, peri-implantitis. Methods: An electronic search conducted by PRISMA protocol was performed. Full texts were carefully assessed, and data were assimilated into a tabular form for discussion and consensus among the expert panel. The quality assessment and the risk of bias are verified by Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) and The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results: A total of 452 records were identified in the based on our PICOs strategy and after screening, 19 articles were included in the descriptive analysis of the review. Totaling 473 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated bone, and 31.6 % of the patients were over 60 years of age. 57.9%) performed implant placement in a period of 12 months or more after the ending of radiotherapy. Only 5 studies had a follow-up period longer than 5 years after implant placement, of which three were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis of 5-year survival rate analysis of implants in irradiated bone was assessed; a random effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 93.13% (95% CI: 87.20 - 99.06; pConclusions: Survival rates of implants placed in irradiated bone is clinically satisfactory after a follow-up of 5 years, with a fewer percentage than in implants placed in non-irradiated bone after metanalyses performed.

Background: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of diode laser photobiomodulation (PBM) on post‐surgical healing, inflammation and implant stability.Methods: Forty dental implants were inserted into 13 patients. The implants were randomly divided into two groups. The test group (PBM+) underwent two sessions of PBM (combined diode laser of 630 and 808 nm), the first of which after surgery, and the second, 7 days after the surgical procedure. The control group (PBM−) received simulated laser treatment. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was determined immediately after the surgical procedure, and 7 days, 4 and 8 weeks later. Post‐surgical inflammation was assessed following the criteria described by Bloemen and Cols. Healing was calculated using the healing index (HI).Results: No differences were found in terms of the mean values of implant stability between the test and control groups over time. Only two of the implants (18.2%) from the PBM− group were classified with the maximum healing index (HI = 5), whereas in the PBM+ group, nine implants (45%) were classified with the aforementioned index (P < 0.0001). Using the logistic regression, it was determined that the non‐application of the laser in the PBM− group caused an OR of 4.333 times of presenting inflammation (IC95% 1.150–16.323;P = 0.030).Conclusions: The application of 808 nm infra‐red laser for bone tissue, and 630 nm for mucosal tissue in two sessions is considered to be an effective way of reducing inflammation and improving early healing. More studies are needed to confirm these results.