Aim: The purpose of this study was to systematically review clinical studies examining the survival and success rates of implants placed with intraoral onlay autogenous bone grafts to answer the following question: do ridge augmentations procedures with intraoral onlay block bone grafts in conjunction with or prior to implant placement influence implant outcome when compared with a control group (guided bone regeneration, alveolar distraction, native bone or short dental implants.)? Material and Method: An electronic data banks and hand searching were used to find relevant articles on vertical and lateral augmentation procedures performed with intraoral onlay block bone grafts for dental implant therapy published up to October 2013. Publications in English, on human subjects, with a controlled study design –involving at least one group with defects treated with intraoral onlay block bone grafts, more than five patients and a minimum follow-up of 12 months after prosthetic loading were included. Two reviewers extracted the data. Results: A total of 6 studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 studies on horizontal augmentation and 2 studies on vertical augmentation. Intraoperative complications were not reported. Most common postsurgical complications included mainly mucosal dehiscences (4 studies), bone graft or membrane exposures (3 studies), complete failures of block grafts (2 studies) and neurosensory alterations (4 studies). For lateral augmentation procedures, implant survival rates ranged from 96.9% to 100%, while for vertical augmentation they ranged from 89.5% to 100%. None article studied the soft tissues healing. Conclusions: Survival and success rates of implants placed in horizontally and vertically resorbed edentulous ridges reconstructed with block bone grafts are similar to those of implants placed in native bone, in distracted sites or with guided bone regeneration. More surgical challenges and morbidity arise from vertical augmentations, thus short implants may be a feasible option. Key words:Alveolar ridge augmentation, intraoral bone grafts, onlay grafts, block grafts, dental implants.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Background Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis includes a correct mechanical debridement of the implant surface to reduce the inflammation and recondition the soft tissues. The aim of the study was to evaluate the results of a single phase of non-surgical therapy by comparing the effect of curettes and ultrasounds versus curettes and abrasive air polisher (Air-Flow) in the peri-implant tissue conditions, and patient satisfaction. Material and Methods A double-blind randomized and controlled prospective clinical study was conducted on patients in peri-implant maintenance phase diagnosed of peri-implantitis treated in the Oral Surgery Unit of the Stomatology Department of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of the University of Valencia, between September of 2017 and May of 2018. They were divided into 2 groups: Group 1: curettes and ultrasounds, and Group 2: curettes and Air-Flow. The clinical and radiological baseline parameters were evaluated after 3-weeks of treatment, as well as patient satisfaction. Results The sample included 34 patients. Group 1 (17 patients, 38 implants) and Group 2 (17 patients, 32 implants). All the variables improved statistically significantly after treatment in both groups, with the exception of recessions and keratinized mucosa and bone loss that did not vary. When comparing both groups, the type of treatment did not influence the majority of the variables, with the exception of the plaque index ( p =0.011) and modified bleeding index from the palatine ( p =0.048), which reduced statistically significant in the group 2, as well as the patient satisfaction which was higher in the group 2 ( p <0.001). Conclusions An initial phase of non-surgical treatment achieves an improvement of the peri-implant clinical parameters, thought the method of debridement used seems not to influence. Key words: Peri-implantitis, peri-implant disease, non-surgical treatment, air-abrasive device, mechanical debridement.

No abstract