Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) is a highly effective biomaterial known for its ability to promote tissue regeneration. While it's been studied extensively in intraoral procedures and bone grafting, its benefits in maxillary sinus lifting lack substantial evidence. This review aimed to evaluate CGF's effectiveness in maxillary sinus augmentation, focusing on clinical, radiographic, and histological outcomes.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases using specific mesh terms and keywords and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Studies up to March 2024 involving transcrestal or lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation with CGF, either alone or in combination with grafting materials, were included.Out of 783 publications, 13 studies met the eligibility criteria. The review assessed CGF's role in minimizing postoperative complications, enhancing new bone formation, and improving implant survival. Despite data variability among studies, the majority reported that CGF positively influenced maxillary sinus augmentation outcomes.While more robust randomized clinical trials are required to draw definitive conclusions, initial results are promising, and the findings suggest that CGF utilization in maxillary sinus augmentation seems to enhance clinical outcomes by promoting vascularization and regeneration at the surgical sites and improving both the quality and quantity of newly formed sinus bone. Furthermore, it exhibits potential for improving postoperative sequelae and achieving high implant survival rates.

The objective of this study was to compare marginal bone loss, surgical and clinical complications, and dental implant survival rate in bilateral maxillary sinus augmented by autologous or porcine xenograft. A randomized controlled clinical trial using split-mouth design enrolled 12 consent adult patients (59.7 ± 8.7 years), who received bilateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation for oral rehabilitation with implant-supported prosthesis. Each patient received both the autologous bone from the mandible (control) or porcine xenograft (test) during the random bilateral sinus lift surgery. A total of 39 dental implants were placed in the posterior maxilla of the 12 patients after 6 months, being rehabilitated after the respective osseointegration period. Both graft materials demonstrated a high implant survival rate at 12 months: 95% for the xenograft side, only 1 implant without osseointegration, and 100% for the autologous side. Radiographic bone loss was low and similar for both groups: control group with a mean of 0.063 ± 0.126, and test group with a mean of 0.092 ± 0.163. No major surgical-related complications have occurred. Only one patient had several prosthetic complications due to fractures of prosthetic components. The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure, both with autologous bone and porcine xenograft materials, is an excellent clinical option procedure for the prosthetic rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae, with low marginal bone loss after one year follow-up, few clinical complications, and a high implant survival rate.

Regenerative dentistry represents a therapeutic modern approach involving biomaterials and biologics such as mesenchymal stem cells. The role of regenerative dentistry is promising in all branches of dentistry, especially in periodontology and implantology for the treatment of bony defects around teeth and implants, respectively. Due to the number of different materials that can be used for this purpose, the aim of the present review is to evidence the regenerative properties of different materials both in periodontitis and peri-implantitis as well as to compare their efficacy. Clinical trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies have been considered in this review. The outcome assessed is represented by the regenerative properties of bone grafts, barrier membranes, and biological materials in the treatment of intrabony and furcation defects, peri-implantitis sites, alveolar ridge preservation, and implant site development. Based on the studies included, it can be stated that in the last years regenerative materials in periodontal and peri-implant defects treatments have shown excellent results, thus providing valuable support to surgical therapy. To achieve optimal and predictable results, clinicians should always consider factors like occlusal load control, prevention of microbial contamination, and wound dehiscence. Further evidence is required about the use of enamel matrix derivative in alveolar ridge preservation, as well as of stem cells and bone morphogenetic proteins-2 in furcation defects and peri-implantitis sites. Considering the high amount of research being conducted in this field, further evidence is expected to be obtained soon.

Oral surgery has undergone dramatic developments in recent years due to the use of biomaterials. The aim of the present review is to provide a general overview of the current biomaterials used in oral surgery and to comprehensively outline their impact on post-operative wound healing. A search in Medline was performed, including hand searching. Combinations of searching terms and several criteria were applied for study identification, selection, and inclusion. The literature was searched for reviews published up to July 2020. Reviews evaluating the clinical and histological effects of biomaterials on post-operative wound healing in oral surgical procedures were included. Review selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer, and 41 reviews were included in the final selection. The selected papers covered a wide range of biomaterials such as stem cells, bone grafts, and growth factors. Bioengineering and biomaterials development represent one of the most promising perspectives for the future of oral surgery. In particular, stem cells and growth factors are polarizing the focus of this ever-evolving field, continuously improving standard surgical techniques, and granting access to new approaches.

Objective: This analysis discusses common problems with systematic reviews (SRs) and presents a novel solution, the structured critical analysis (SCA) that can be incorporated into a SR or used as an alternative literature review design.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of current SRs related to interdisciplinary restorative dentistry was obtained by evaluating 100 current SRs for their self-reported methodological quality and its effect on scientific validity.Results: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocol (PRISMA) was used in 99/100 SRs, but only 8/100 reported a low risk of bias. High statistical heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis was found in 44/100 SRs. Only 94 paragraphs/100 SRs provided critical analysis.Discussion: Significant problems were found with current SRs that can compromise their reliability as the premier level of evidence for clinical science research. The reader must be aware of these deficiencies to correctly interpret the SR and cannot rely on the format alone.

Novel strategies are needed for improving guided bone regeneration (GBR) in oral surgery prior to implant placement, particularly in maxillary sinus augmentation (GBR-MSA) and in lateral alveolar ridge augmentation (LRA). This study tested the hypothesis that the combination of freshly isolated, unmodified autologous adipose-derived regenerative cells (UA-ADRCs), fraction 2 of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF-2) and an osteoinductive scaffold (OIS) (UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS) is superior to the combination of PRGF-2 and the same OIS alone (PRGF-2/OIS) in GBR-MSA/LRA.

A 79-year-old patient was treated with a bilateral external sinus lift procedure as well as a bilateral lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. GBR-MSA/LRA was performed with UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS on the right side, and with PRGF-2/OIS on the left side. Biopsies were collected at 6 wk and 34 wk after GBR-MSA/LRA. At the latter time point implants were placed. Radiographs (32 mo follow-up time) demonstrated excellent bone healing. No radiological or histological signs of inflammation were observed. Detailed histologic, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analysis of the biopsies evidenced that UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS resulted in better and faster bone regeneration than PRGF-2/OIS.

GBR-MSA with UA-ADRCs, PRGF-2, and an OIS shows effectiveness without adverse effects.

Novel treatments for bone defects, particularly in patients with poor regenerative capacity, are based on bone tissue engineering strategies which include mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), bioactive factors, and convenient scaffold supports.

In this study, we aimed at comparing the potential for different scaffolds to induce osteogenic differentiation of human maxillary Schneiderian sinus membrane- (hMSSM-) derived cells. Methods. hMSSM-derived cells were seeded on gelatin, collagen, or Hydroxyapatite β-Tricalcium phosphate-Fibrin (Haβ-TCP-Fibrin) scaffolds. Cell viability was determined using an MTT assay. Alizarin red staining method, Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity assay, and quantitative real-time PCR analysis were performed to assess hMSSM-derived cells osteogenic differentiation.

Cell viability, calcium deposition, ALP activity, and osteoblastic markers transcription levels were most striking in gelatin scaffold-embedded hMSSM-derived cells.

Our findings suggest a promising potential for gelatin-hMSSM-derived cell construct for treating bone defects.

Short implants have been presented as an option for posterior rehabilitation in cases of poor bone height.

To compare the survival rate of short implants and standard implants when used in posterior single crowns, in addition to reporting marginal bone loss, prosthetic failures, and surgical complications.

Electronic search (PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) and hand search were performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that evaluated both short and standard implants in posterior single crowns.

Out of 345 articles identified by both electronic and hand search, four studies were selected (one CCT and three RCTs). The meta-analysis for the survival rate showed that there was no significant difference between the short implants and the standard ones (P = 1.00; RR:1.00; CI:0.97-1.03) performed with three RCTs for a one-year follow-up. The mean marginal bone loss ranged from 0.1 mm to 0.54 mm. Only one study reported the presence of prosthetic failures and surgical complications.

The survival rate of short implants was similar to the standard ones in posterior single crowns, for the one-year follow-up period. They also presented low surgical complications, prosthetic failures and marginal bone loss, being a predictable treatment for single rehabilitation in posterior tooth loss.