Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Root-end resection versus root canal retreatment, Outcome 1 Healing-1 year.. .. . Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Root-end resection versus root canal retreatment, Outcome 2 Healing-4 years.. .. Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Root-end resection versus root canal retreatment, Outcome 3 Healing-10 years.. .. Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Root-end resection versus root canal retreatment, Outcome 4 Participants reporting pain. Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Root-end resection versus root canal retreatment, Outcome 5 Participants reporting swelling. Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 CBCT versus periapical radiography, Outcome 1 Healing-1 year.. .. .. .. . Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo, Outcome

APCs should be used in postextraction sites to improve clinical and radiographic outcomes such as bone density and soft tissue healing and postoperative symptoms. The actual benefit of APCs on decreasing pain in extraction sockets is still not quantifiable.

Background: Several treatment options exist for the implant-supported rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla.Purpose: To compare maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated to standard length implants, with direct placement of implants of reduced length in the available residual bone. Materials and Methods:Patients with edentulous posterior maxilla and a residual height of 4-7 mm were randomly allocated to the test (short implants [SIs], 6.5 to 8.5mm long) or the control (sinus augmentation [SA] and implants 10mm long) group. Anorganic bovine bone was the grafting material for the control group. In both groups pure platelet-rich plasma was used to bioactivate implant surface prior to insertion. Implant and prosthesis survival, clinical variables, radiographic bone level change, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were assessed.Results: Twenty-five patients were treated in the control group (58 standard length implants) and 27 in the test group (42 SIs). After 3 years of follow-up no implant failure and biological or mechanical complications were recorded. Marginal bone loss, soft tissue, and oral hygiene parameters were similar in the 2 groups at both 1 and 3 years' follow-up. Postoperative pain, swelling and other symptoms and daily activities were better in the SIs group than in the SA group, while patients' satisfaction after 1 year was similar.Conclusions: In spite of comparable medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, when the residual ridge height is sufficient for a safe placement, SIs may be preferred due to simplified protocol, less invasiveness, shorter treatment time, and reduced postoperative discomfort as compared to SA.

No abstract