This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

With the limitations due to the features of the selected papers, no major histological and histomorphometrical differences arose among different procedures or when compared to spontaneous healing. Thus, it might be argued that in preserved sites it is unnecessary to wait over 3 to 4 months prior to implant insertion.

Immediate implant placement does not seem to counteract alveolar ridge modelling after tooth extraction. Furthermore, the currently available evidence does not allow for any conclusive statements regarding the efficacy of a concomitant regenerative technique in preventing the amount of alveolar reduction.

Aim To assess the effectiveness, in terms of clinical performance and patient perception, of minimally invasive periodontal surgeries (MIPSs), and to compare MIPSs to traditional surgery in the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. Materials and Methods An electronic search and a manual search were carried out to identify studies investigating clinical (CAL, PPD, REC), radiographic (bone fill) and patient's centred (VAS) outcomes at least 6 months after MIPSs. A linear mixed‐effect model was used for meta‐analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the study quality (RCT or case series). A meta‐analysis assessing differences in clinical parameters between MIPSs and traditional flaps was also performed. Results Meta‐analysis from the 18 included studies revealed a PPD reduction of 4.24 mm (95% CI = 3.79–4.69 mm), a CAL gain of 3.89 mm (95% CI = 3.42–4.35 mm), a REC increase of 0.44 mm (95% CI = 0.11–0.77 mm), a radiographic bone fill gain of 58.25% (95% CI = 42.30%–74.21%) and a VAS value of 1.16 (95% CI = 0.78–1.54). Based on 2 RCTs, MIPSs are more effective than traditional surgery for PPD reduction (0.93 mm, 95% CI = 1.71–0.15) and CAL gain (1 mm, 95% CI = 1.75–.24). Conclusion Minimally invasive periodontal surgeries may be considered for the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. However, the real effect cannot be systematically evaluated due to the paucity of studies comparing MIPSs to traditional flap for periodontal reconstructive surgery.

Primary stability is an indicator of subsequent osseointegration of dental implants. However, few studies have compared the implant stability among anatomical regions and bone types; thus, not enough data exist regarding the stability of implants placed in regenerated bone (RB). The present study evaluated primary and long-term stability of implants placed in RB and non-regenerated healed bone (HB). A total of 216 screw cylinder implants were placed in 216 patients (98 in HB and 118 in RB, 6 [RB6, N = 68] or 12 [RB12, N = 50] months after tooth extraction). Implant stability was evaluated using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measured at the time of implant placement (E1), at the time of loading (4 months after placement, E2), and 4 months after loading (E3). Various clinically relevant measurements were obtained, such as implant diameter, length, and location, as well as bone quality. At E1, implant location, bone quality, and experimental group significantly affected implant stability (all at P < .05). At E2, implant location, diameter, length, and experimental group significantly affected implant stability (all at P < .05). At E3, bone quality, implant diameter, length, and experimental group significantly affected implant stability (all at P < .01). Stability for the RB12 group was significantly higher than all other corresponding values; further, the values did not change significantly over time. For the HB and RB6 groups, stability was significantly higher at E2 than at E1 (P < .001) and was no different between E2 and E3. Implant location, length, and experimental group were associated with these differences (all at P < .05). Compared with HB and RB6, higher implant stability may be achieved in regenerated bone 12 months post-extraction (RB12). This stability was achieved at E1 and maintained for at least 8 months. Variables such as implant length, diameter, and bone quality affected the stability differently over time. Implant stability varied in different anatomic regions and with regard to different healing processes in the bone.