The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of an air purifier device (professional XXl inn-56 innoliving) with HEPA 14 filter in reducing the number of suspended particles generated during dental procedures as a vector of COVID-19 transmission. The survey was conducted on 80 individuals who underwent Oral Surgery with dental Hygiene Procedures, divided into two groups based on the operational risk classification related to dental procedures: a Test Group (with application of filtering device) and a Control Group (without filtering device). All procedures were monitored throughout the clinical controls, utilising professional tools such as molecular particle counters (Lasair III 350 L 9.50 L/min), bacteriological plates (Tryptic Soy Agar), sound meters for LAFp sound pressure level (SPL) and LCpk instantaneous peak level. The rate of suspended particles, microbiological pollution and noise pollution were calculated. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis method. The results showed the higher efficacy of the TEST Group on pollution abatement, 83% more than the Control fgroup. Additionally, the contamination was reduced by 69–80%. Noise pollution was not noticeable compared to the sounds already present in the clinical environment. The addition of PAC equipment to the already existing safety measures was found to be significantly effective in further microbiological risk reduction.

The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate and compare implant survival, marginal bone loss, and clinical and prosthetic complications in healthy patients and patients with type I diabetes undergoing full arch implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. A total of 47 patients needing total fixed rehabilitation of one or both arches were enrolled for this study. Based on the absence of any systemic diseases (Group A) or the presence of type I diabetes (Group B), the sample was divided into two groups. According to the grade of bone atrophy in the posterior region, patients received full arch rehabilitation (of one or both jaws) with 6 axial implants or, if the residual posterior bone height was insufficient, All-on-Four rehabilitation and a total 236 dental implants were placed. Follow-up visits were performed 1 week after surgery, at 3 and 6 months and then once a year for the next 10 years. No statistically significant differences between groups were recorded about implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, or clinical and prosthetic complications. However, concerning complications, post-surgical bleeding and wound infection were recorded in Group A more than in Group B. In cases of compensated diabetes compensation, implant placement could be considered a safe procedure.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.