Background and Aims To review the regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration: bone grafts, barrier membranes, bioactive factors and cell therapies. Material and Methods Four background review publications served to elaborate this consensus report. Results and Conclusions Biomaterials used as bone grafts must meet specific requirements: biocompatibility, porosity, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, surface properties, biodegradability, mechanical properties, angiogenicity, handling and manufacturing processes. Currently used biomaterials have demonstrated advantages and limitations based on the fulfilment of these requirements. Similarly, membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR) must fulfil specific properties and potential biological mechanisms to improve their clinical applicability. Pre‐clinical and clinical studies have evaluated the added effect of bone morphogenetic proteins (mainly BMP‐2) and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) when used as bioactive agents to enhance bone regeneration. Three main approaches using cell therapies to enhance bone regeneration have been evaluated: (a) “minimally manipulated” whole tissue fractions; (b) ex vivo expanded “uncommitted” stem/progenitor cells; and (c) ex vivo expanded “committed” bone‐/periosteum‐derived cells. Based on the evidence from clinical trials, transplantation of cells, most commonly whole bone marrow aspirates (BMA) or bone marrow aspirate concentrations (BMAC), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds has demonstrated an additional effect in sinus augmentation and horizontal ridge augmentation, and comparable bone regeneration to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair.

(SE 0.066; 95% CI,. The presence of any kind of mandibular cortical erosion gave an estimated sensitivity and specificity in detecting reduced BMD, respectively, of 0.789 (SE 0.031; 95% CI, 95% CI,) and a sensitivity and specificity in detecting osteoporosis, respectively, of 0.806 (SE 0.105; 95% CI, 95% CI,

Non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) includes the improvement of oral hygiene and the use of subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) for removing the soft and calcified biofilm deposits from the affected root surfaces. The ultimate goal of this mechanical treatment is to allow the diseased periodontal tissues to heal back to an inflammation-free status and restore periodontal health, as demarcated by the improvement of clinical indices. The sustainability and predictability of the outcome depends on various factors, including the efficient removal of

Objectives To follow‐up the radiographic bone level changes and the clinical outcomes of immediately provisionalized and conventionally restored implants with a hydrophilic surface following 5 years of function. Materials and methods This was a 5‐year follow‐up of a prospective, randomized, single‐blind controlled study involving 16 of the 24 originally recruited patients in need of a single‐tooth replacement in the esthetic area. Implants were either immediately provisionalized with a non‐occluding temporary crown (test group, n = 7), or left without a crown (control group, n = 9). In both groups, the definitive restoration was placed 16 weeks after implant placement. Radiographic and clinical parameters were evaluated at 36, 48, and 60 months post‐implant placement, together with implant survival and success rates. The esthetic outcomes were measured with the Papilla Fill Index (PFI) and the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Results At 60 months, similar peri‐implant bone loss was observed in the test (−0.42 mm ±0.17 mm) and in the control (−0.37 mm ±0.35 mm) groups. A tendency for an improved esthetic outcome from implant loading to the subsequent follow‐ups was noticed in both groups. Both groups presented with high levels of long‐term implant survival and success. Conclusions This study supports non‐functional immediate provisionalization as a viable long‐term option for the management of single‐tooth implants in the esthetic area. However, the small sample size does not allow statistical inference at 60 months of follow‐up and future adequately powered studies are warranted.

The collagen membrane investigated was biocompatible and able to promote bone regeneration. However, pronounced signs of degradation were observed starting from day 30. Since successful regeneration is obtained only when cell occlusion and space maintenance exist for the healing time needed by the bone progenitor cells to repopulate the defect, the suitability of collagen membranes in cases where long-lasting barriers are needed needs to be further reviewed.

Aim This review critically appraises the available knowledge on the pre‐clinical and clinical use of bioactive factors for bone regeneration in the cranial and maxillofacial area. Materials and Methods The use of growth factors, amelogenins and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) for bone regeneration was reviewed in a systematic manner. More specifically, pre‐clinical and clinical studies on ridge preservation, alveolar ridge augmentation, regeneration of peri‐implant defects and sinus augmentation models were considered. Results Amongst different bioactive factors, the highest pre‐clinical and clinical evidence of a positive effect on bone formation is associated with rhBMP‐2 and the lowest with amelogenins. While APCs seem to accelerate clinical healing and reduce postoperative discomfort, there is insufficient and contrasting evidence of a significant effect on hard tissue regeneration for the different clinical applications. Conclusions Although there is increasing evidence that bioactive factors might enhance the bone regeneration process, the great heterogeneity of the available studies and the limited number of RCTs do not allow to draw robust conclusions. Issues that still need to be investigated include the optimal carriers for bioactive agents (direct vs. indirect), the dosage, the timing of administration, as well as the possibility of combining different agents to promote synergistic effects.

Aims To compare tooth‐ (TSRP) and implant‐supported (ISRP) removable prostheses in terms of abutment and prosthesis survival (PICO 1) and estimated cumulative survival of teeth/implants and prostheses (PICO 2) at ≥12‐month post‐prosthesis delivery in patients with stage IV periodontitis. Materials and Methods Five databases were searched to identify RCTs, CCTs, single arms, prospective cohort studies, case series and retrospective studies. Duplicate screening was performed, and ranges for abutment and prosthesis survival were calculated. Results Twenty‐six studies were included in the qualitative assessment. Only one study with critical risk of bias comparing the two treatment modalities reported similar survival rates at 2 years. Overall, prospective studies on ISRPs indicated an implant survival rate ranging from 96.4% to 100% and a prosthesis survival rate of 100% with a follow‐up from 12 to 54 months. Prospective studies on TSRPs indicated a tooth survival ranging from 85.71% to 100% at 1‐ to 10‐years follow‐up. Conclusions The available evidence is of poor quality, and it does not allow to make robust conclusions on the efficacy of these rehabilitations in stage IV periodontitis patients. Particularly for TSRPs, careful patient selection is crucial and a certain number of biological and prosthetic complications should be expected.

The gene expression profile of the cells participating in osseous formation varied depending on the healing stage. A number of candidate genes that seem differentially expressed during early stages of intramembranous bone regeneration was suggested.