| 1. |
- Le Roch, Sarah, et al.
(author)
-
European survey on criteria of aesthetics for periodontal evaluation: The ESCAPE study
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46:11, s. 1116-1123
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Objective: The ESCAPE multicentre survey was designed to (a) compare the agreement of three relevant aesthetic scoring systems among different centres, and (b) evaluate the reproducibility of each question of the questionnaires. Materials and Methods: EFP centres (n=14) were involved in an e-survey. Forty-two participants (28 teachers, 14 postgraduate students) were asked to score the one-year aesthetic outcomes of photographs using the Before–After Scoring System (BASS), the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Mean values of kappa statistics performed on each question were provided to resume global agreement of each method. Results: Between teachers, a difference of kappa≥0.41 (p=.01) was found for BASS (75%) and PES (57%). Similarly, RES (84%) and PES (57%) were different (p<.001). No difference was found between BASS (75%) and RES (84%). No difference was found between students, whatever the scoring system. Questions of each scoring system showed differences in their reproducibility. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study indicate that BASS and RES scoring systems are reproducible tools to evaluate aesthetic after root coverage therapies between different centres. Among the various variables, lack of scar, degree of root coverage, colour match and gingival margin that follows the CEJ show the best reliability.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sanz, M., et al.
(author)
-
Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: Consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979. ; 46, s. 82-91
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
