On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) as a pandemic. Until an effective treatment or a vaccine is developed, the current recommendations are to contain the disease, and control its transmission. It is now clear that the primary mode of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission is aerosol/droplet spread, and by contacting virus‐contaminated surfaces acting as fomites (inanimate vectors). Furthermore, recent data indicate that the live virus particles are present in saliva, and, more alarmingly, asymptomatic individuals may transmit the infection. By virtue of the nature of the practice of dentistry where intrinsically, a high volume of aerosols is produced, as well as the close proximity of dentists and patients during treatment, dentists and allied health staff are considered the highest risk health professional group for acquiring SARS‐CoV‐2 during patient management. Therefore, several organizations and specialty associations have proposed guidelines and recommendations for limiting the transmission of SARS‐COV‐2 from carriers to dentists and vice versa. This paper aims to provide a review of these guidelines, and concludes with a brief look at how the practice of dentistry may be impacted by COVID‐19, in the post‐pandemic era.

Meta-analyses showed less CBL loss around IIP compared with implant placement in healed bone. Platform-switched implants showed greater crestal bone preservation than non-platform-switched implants. There was no significant difference in CBL with one- versus two-stage placement or use of immediate versus delayed IIP loading. Although there were statistically significant differences favoring IIP, the small differences may not be clinically relevant. Although IIP showed favorable outcomes for CBL changes, these results should be interpreted with caution because of high heterogeneity among studies.

IIP in thick biotype and with immediate provisionalization had less MFR and better PH than IIP in thin biotype or with delayed restoration. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity, which was calculated using comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software that took into account sample size and different treatment groups, and limited qualified studies.

Guided tissue regeneration with the use of resorbable membranes was superior to non-resorbable membranes in vertical bone fill. Both types of membranes were more effective than open flap debridement in reducing vertical probing depths and gaining vertical attachment levels and in gaining vertical and horizontal bone.