Background and objective While tobacco cigarette smoking has been proven to be a risk factor for periodontitis, limited information is available regarding vaping, a new alternative to smoking that has been branded as less harmful. Several important in vitro studies have shown that vaping has a similarly damaging effect as cigarette smoking on the health of the periodontium. However, a comprehensive review is lacking in this field. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature about the impact of vaping on periodontitis. Methods The research question was created using the PICOs format. A systematic search of the following electronic databases was performed up to March 2020: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and grey literature. Human studies that assessed periodontal status (plaque index, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment loss, marginal bone loss, and probing depth) in e‐cigarette users compared to non‐smokers (control group) were assessed based on an estimate of fixed effects. The weights of the studies were calculated based on their risks of bias. Results After duplicates were removed, 1,659 studies were screened and 8 case–control studies that investigated the relationship between vaping and periodontal parameters in humans were selected after their risk of bias assessment. Estimated effects of vaping after weighting results based on their standard deviation showed increased plaque, marginal bone loss, clinical attachment loss, pocket depth, and reduced bleeding on probing. Conclusion This study concluded that there is not enough evidence to fully characterize the impacts of vaping on periodontitis. However, within the limitations of our review and the selected included studies, the available results point to increased destruction of the periodontium leading to the development of the disease.

Importance of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing implant failure. Different types of antibiotics used for prophylaxis. Future considerations in antibiotic use for preventing early implant failure.

Objective The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate implant failure rates and their association with guided and free-hand implant placement techniques. Materials and methods A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Medline via Ovid, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar. The search was completed in September 2020. Series of meta-analyses were conducted to compare implant failure rates with guided and free-hand techniques. Results A total of 3387 articles were identified from the electronic search. After applying the inclusion criteria, eight articles were selected for qualitative assessment and four for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The included studies had a risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.58), P < 0.001 for the use of guided implant placement. Implant failure rates were affected by the different placement techniques indicated by the test for overall effect (Z = 3.53, P = 0.0004). The incidence of implant failure in guided surgery versus free-hand surgery was found to be 2.25% and 6.42%, respectively. Conclusion Both guided and free-hand implant placement techniques resulted in a high implant survival rate. However, implant failure rates were almost three times higher in the free-hand implant placement category. A guided implant placement approach is recommended for a successful outcome.