Periodontal and peri-implant regeneration is the technique that aims to restore the damaged tissue around teeth and implants. They are surrounded by a different apparatus, and according to it, the regenerative procedure can differ for both sites. During the last century, several biomaterials and biological mediators were proposed to achieve a complete restoration of the damaged tissues with less invasiveness and a tailored approach. Based on relevant systematic reviews and articles searched on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, data regarding different biomaterials were extracted and summarized. Bone grafts of different origin, membranes for guided tissue regeneration, growth factors, and stem cells are currently the foundation of the routinary clinical practice. Moreover, a tailored approach, according to the patient and specific to the involved tooth or implant, is mandatory to achieve a better result and a reduction in patient morbidity and discomfort. The aim of this review is to summarize clinical findings and future developments regarding grafts, membranes, molecules, and emerging therapies. In conclusion, tissue engineering is constantly evolving; moreover, a tailor-made approach for each patient is essential to obtain a reliable result and the combination of several biomaterials is the elective choice in several conditions.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in addition to coronally advanced flap (CAF) for the treatment of both single and multiple gingival recessions (GRs) compared to the CAF alone and to the adjunct of connective tissue graft (CTG). Root coverage outcomes using platelet concentrates have gained increased interest. In particular, it has been suggested that adding L-PRF to CAF may provide further benefits in the treatment of GRs. Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RTCs) investigating root coverage outcomes with CAF + L-PRF. The outcomes of interest included mean root coverage (mRC), recession reduction, keratinized tissue width (KTW) gain, gingival thickness (GT) gain, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROms) such as pain perception and discomfort. Results: A total of 275 patients and 611 surgical sites were analyzed. L-PRF in adjunct to single CAF seems to show statistically significant results regarding clinical attachment level (CAL) with a weighted means (WM) 0.43 95% CI (−0.04,0.91), p < 0.0001, GT (WM 0.17 95% CI (−0.02,0.36), p < 0.0001, and mRC (WM 13.95 95% CI (−1.99,29.88) p < 0.0001, compared to single CAF alone. Interesting results were obtained from the adjunct of PRF to multiple CAF with respect to multiple CAF alone with an increase in the mRC WM 0.07 95% CI (−30.22,30.35), p = 0.0001, and PPD change WM 0.26 95% CI (−0.06,0.58), p < 00001. On the other hand, no statistically significant data were obtained when L-PRF was added to single or multiple CAF combined with CTG according to the included outcomes such as mRC (p = 0.03 overall). Conclusions: L-PRF is a valid alternative to CAF alone. L-PRF compared to CTG in single and multiple CAF showed statistically significant results regarding pain perception and discomfort PROms (p < 0.0001). However, CTG remains the gold standard for treating gingival recession.

Aim To systematically assess the clinical performance of different approaches for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects in terms of pocket resolution compared to access surgery with papilla preservation techniques (PPTs). Material and Methods Systematic literature searches were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to April 2020 to identify RCTs on regenerative treatment [guided tissue regeneration (GTR) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with or without biomaterials] of intrabony defects using PPTs. Results were expressed as weighted mean percentages (WMP) or risk ratios of pocket resolution at 12 months (considering both final PD ≤ 3 mm and ≤4 mm). Results A total of 12 RCTs were included. Based on a final PD ≤ 3 mm or PD ≤ 4 mm, the WMP of pocket resolution was 61.4% and 92.1%, respectively. EMD and GTR obtained comparable results. Pairwise meta‐analysis identified a greater probability of achieving pocket resolution for GTR compared to PPTs. The number needed to treat for GTR to obtain one extra intrabony defect achieving PD ≤ 3 mm or PD ≤ 4 mm over PPTs was 2 and 4, respectively. Conclusion Regenerative surgery represents a viable approach to obtain final PD ≤ 4 mm in the short‐term.

Periodontal regeneration is a technique that aims to regenerate the damaged tissue around periodontally compromised teeth. The regenerative process aims to use scaffolds, cells, and growth factors to enhance biological activity.

No abstract