Purpose To investigate the effectiveness of adding leukocyte and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) to deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation. Materials and Methods Twelve patients requiring two‐stage bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation were enrolled to the study. The elevated sinus cavities were randomly grafted with DBBM + L‐PRF (test) or DBBM alone (control) in a split‐mouth design. Implants were placed in the augmented sites after 4 months in the test group and 8 months in the control group. Bone biopsies were collected during implant placement for histomorphometric evaluation. Resonance frequency analysis was performed immediately after implant placement and at implant loading in both groups. Cone‐beam computed tomography was obtained preoperatively and postoperatively for evaluation of graft volume changes. Results Both procedures were effective for maxillary sinus augmentation. Cone‐beam computed tomography analysis did not reveal differences in graft volume between test and control group at any of the evaluated time points (P > .05). Histological evaluation demonstrated increased percentage of newly formed bone for the test group (44.58% ± 13.9%) compared to the control group (30.02% ± 8.42%; P = .0087). The amount of residual graft in the control group was significantly higher (13.75% ± 9.99%) than in the test group (3.59 ± 4.22; P = .0111). Implant stability quotient (ISQ) immediately after implant placement was significantly higher in the control group (75.13 ± 5.69) compared to the test group (60.9 ± 9.35; P = .0003). The ISQ values at loading did not differ between the groups (P = .8587). Implant survival rate was 100% for both groups. Conclusion The addition of L‐PRF to the DBBM into the maxillary sinus allowed early implant placement (4 months) with increased new bone formation than DBBM alone after 8 months of healing.

This case report aimed to describe the effects of leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) associated with demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and absorbable collagen membrane (CM) on bone regeneration in maxillary sinus augmentation. A 59-year-old male patient was referred to the Department of Periodontology for implant rehabilitation of his edentulous upper jaw. The treatment plan involved maxillary sinus augmentation followed by implant installations. A split-mouth design was employed in which the right maxillary sinus was filled using L-PRF, DBBM, and CM; the left side was filled with DBBM and CM. After 4 and 8 months postoperatively, 2 dental implants were installed in each of the right and left maxillary sinuses. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) was taken before and after sinus augmentation for evaluation of tridimensional bone volume alterations. Bone biopsies were harvested from the implant sites for histomorphometric evaluation. Resonance frequency analysis was employed immediately after implant placement and before prosthetic rehabilitation for evaluation of implant stability. Implants were loaded 10 months after sinus augmentation. CBCT analysis showed a higher resorption rate in the right side of the maxillary sinus (L-PRF + DBBM) compared to the left side (22.25% and 8.95%, respectively). Implant stability quotients were above 68 in all time-points for both groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed a high amount of newly formed bone when L-PRF was used compared with DBBM alone (2 118 102 and 975 535 mm3, respectively). Taken together, both techniques were effective for maxillary sinus augmentation, however the addition of L-PRF to the graft allowed early implant placement and accelerated bone healing in the conditions studied.

Aim:The purpose of this review is to estimate the prevalence of peri-implantitis, as well as to determine possible risk factors associated with its development in patients treated with oral implants.Background: Although implant therapy has been identified as a successful and predictable treatment for partially and fully edentulous patients, complications and failures can occur. Periimplantitis is considered a biologic complication that results in bone loss around implants and may lead to implant treatment failure. Results:A great variation has been observed in the literature regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis according to the diagnostic criteria used to define peri-implantitis. The prevalence ranges from 4.7 to 43% at implant level, and from 8.9 to ≥ 56% at patient level. Many risk factors that may lead to the establishment and progression of peri-implantitis have been suggested. There is strong evidence that presence and history of periodontitis are potential risk factors for peri-implantitis. Cigarette smoking has not yet been conclusively established as a risk factor for peri-implantitis, although extra care should be taken with dental implant in smokers. Other risk factors, such as diabetes, genetic traits, implant surface roughness and presence of keratinized mucosa still require further investigation. Clinical significance: The knowledge of the real impact of peri-implantitis on the outcome of treatments with oral implants as well as the identification of risk factors associated to this inflammatory condition are essential for the development of supportive maintenance programs and the establishment of prevention protocols. Conclusion: Peri-implantitis is not an uncommon complication following implant therapy. A higher prevalence of peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis is currently a topic of major interest in implantology. Considered one of the main reasons of late implant failure, there is an emerged concern whether implant characteristics could trigger inflammatory lesion and loss of supporting bone. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an evidence based overview on the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: implant surface topography; implant location; occlusal overload; time in function; prosthesis-associated factors (rehabilitation extension, excess of cement and implant-abutment connection); and metal particle release. Although existing data suggests that some implant-based factors may increase the risk of peri-implantitis, the evidence is still limited to consider them a true risk factor for peri-implantitis. In conclusion, further evidences are required to a better understanding of the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Large population-based studies including concomitant analyses of implant-and patient-based factors are required to provide strong evidence of a possible association with peri-implantitis in a higher probability. The identification of these factors is essential for the establishment of strategies to prevent peri-implantitis.