Quintessence international最新文献

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in marginal bone level (MBL) and survival rates of implants (ISR) placed in lateral-window sinus floor elevation (LSFE) sites compared to other sites.

Method and materials: Patient with a history of LSFE and following implant placement were identified. Clinical and radiographic data was collected by 2 calibrated examiners and divided into three cohorts for the analysis, including (1) implants placed in the LSFE-grafted sinus, (2) implants placed in the maxilla at sites other than grafted sinus, and (3) implants placed in the mandible. ISR and MBL were recorded and calculated. The potential influences of several host, implant, and surgically related factors on ISR and MBL were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

Results: 427 implants from 99 patients (63.8 ±12.5 years) with an average follow-up period of 32.3 ±29.2 months were analyzed. The cumulative ISR at the grafted sinuses was 93.63%. Mean MBL was 0.44 ± 0.79 mm, 0.84 ±1.21 mm, and 0.85 ±1.16 mm for implants in group 1 (n= 142), group 2 (n=129), and group 3 (n=147) (p=0.01). The majority of MBL occurred within the first 12 months after implant placement. The status of smoking and periodontal disease did not impact ISR or MBL for any group (P>0.05). Neither sinus membrane perforation (SMP) or grafting materials affected MBL (P>0.05) in group 1.

Conclusion: The utilization of LSFE and the presence of SMP during LSFE had no negative impact on implant outcomes.

Objectives: This single-arm prospective interventional study evaluated the effectiveness of silver-fluoride combined with potassium-iodide (AgF+KI; Riva Star Aqua®, SDI Limited) in decreasing hypersensitivity after its application on permanent molars affected by MIH (MIH-TNI 3 & 4) immediately (15 minutes) and after three months.

Methods: 22 children with 53 hypersensitive MIH-affected permanent molars (MIH-TNI-3 or 4) underwent AgF+KI application after isolation with cotton rolls. Teeth included had no prior in-office desensitizing agents or sealants within one month before recruitment. Hypersensitivity was assessed using a one-second air blast stimulus at three intervals: baseline, 15 minutes, and three months post-treatment (blinded). The response to the air-stimulus was quantified using the SCASS test, and teeth with grades 2 and 3 were only included. Statistical analysis involved Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Friedman test.

Results: The reported mean SCASS scores declined significantly from 2.51 at baseline to 1.15 after 15-min and 0.98 after three months (n=20 patients, n=49 molars). Molars with SCASS 2 had a statistically significantly lower mean hypersensitivity score (from n=26 to n=24) compared to SCASS 3 teeth (from n=27 to n=19) at the subsequent post-treatment evaluation. However, the percentage reduction from baseline was not significant. Additionally, the reduction in hypersensitivity after AgF/KI application was almost identical for treated (desensitising agent >1 month prior enrolment) and untreated molars.

Conclusion: AgF+KI is an effective and simple desensitizer providing instant and mid-term relief in schoolchildren with hypersensitive MIH-molars.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term dimensional stability of dental ridges two years after soft tissue augmentation using a porcine-derived volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) at healing abutment connections.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a private clinic from 2021 to 2023, involving 13 patients who underwent delayed single implant placement in both maxillae and mandible. Three months after implant placement, the buccal soft tissue adjacent to the abutment was augmented with VCMX. Intraoral scans were taken at three points: at implant placement (baseline), one-month post-grafting, and 24 months after implant loading. Pre-implant cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were also obtained. Volumetric and profilometric changes were measured at 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm below the mucosal margin by superimposing intraoral and CBCT scans. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis.

Results: All 13 patients completed the two-year follow-up. Mean volumetric changes at the graft site were +18.15 ± 15.34 mm³ initially, decreasing by 11.73 ± 21.91 mm³ over two years. Profilometric analysis showed increases of 0.72 ± 0.88 mm, 0.54 ± 0.65 mm, and 0.32 ± 0.65 mm at 1, 2, and 3 mm, respectively, one-month post-grafting. At 24 months, reductions of -0.17 ± 0.77 mm, -0.45 ± 0.58 mm, and -0.48 ± 0.60 mm were recorded.

Conclusions: VCMX use for soft tissue augmentation shows minimal remodeling after 24 months, supporting its efficacy for soft tissue stability in dental implantology. Further long-term studies are recommended.

Objective: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of diode laser gingivectomy, conventional gingivectomy, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment in the management of gingival enlargement during orthodontic treatment.

Method and materials: Forty-five healthy, orthodontic patients with labial gingival enlargement on the six anterior teeth were selected and randomly assigned to one of the groups (conventional, laser, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment). Clinical parameters including clinical crown length, periodontal pocket depth, and Vertical Gingival Overgrowth Index were recorded at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative pain was evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days. Esthetic satisfaction and acceptance of the procedure were recorded on day 10 and repeated after 6 months.

Results: Statistically significant results were obtained for mean reduction in periodontal pocket depth for conventional, laser, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment groups (-1.43, -1.75, and -0.9 mm, respectively; P .001), clinical crown length gain (1.45, 1.70, and 0.35 mm, respectively; P .001) and mean Vertical Gingival Overgrowth Index score (-1.14, -1.29, and -0.76, respectively; P .001) over 6 months. Both test groups showed greater statistically significant changes in clinical parameters over 6 months compared to nonsurgical periodontal treatment (P .001). There was a gradual decrease in postoperative pain for all three groups over 7 days, with the conventional group showing a statistically significant difference in mean pain score on days 1 and 3 compared to other groups.

Conclusion: Both conventional and laser gingivectomies were more effective in controlling enlargement over nonsurgical periodontal treatment alone at 1, 3, and 6 months.

Clinical significance: Laser and conventional gingivectomies as adjunctive treatments achieved superior results when compared to nonsurgical periodontal treatment alone in the treatment of gingival enlargement and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, with no significant clinical differences between the two treatments.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in gingival recessions in periodontitis patients over 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy and to assess the impact of gingival recession on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

Method and materials: Fifty-one patients with over 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy were followed up (V1) with complete periodontal status including periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) at six sites/tooth, oral hygiene indices, and recession status. Patient anamnesis, oral hygiene habits, and orthodontic history were assessed. Data were compared with records from 10 to 11.5 years prior (V0). Gingival recession changes were analyzed at patient level, and for all teeth with deep gingival recession ≥ 3 mm at tooth and site level (midbuccal site). OHRQoL was assessed at V1 (OHIP-G14 questionnaire). Possible risk factors for gingival recession progression and the associations between the number of deep gingival recession and OHRQoL were tested (linear mixed-effects models, linear regression).

Results: The analysis included 45 patients (stage III/IV periodontitis). Patients retained most teeth (V0, 23.87 ± 4.38; V1, 22.53 ± 4.78), with stable mean overall PPD (V0, 2.34 ± 0.35 mm; V1, 2.39 ± 0.26 mm), and CAL (V0, 3.56 ± 0.94 mm; V1, 3.56 ± 0.89 mm). Teeth with deep gingival recessions showed overall only minimal mean gingival recession progression (0.16 ± 0.97 mm). The mean increase at the midbuccal sites was 0.66 ± 1.58 mm. In total, 25% of teeth had > 1 mm gingival recession progression at the midbuccal site. Molars showed less gingival recession progression than anterior teeth. The number of deep gingival recessions did not significantly impact OHRQoL.

Conclusions: Periodontitis patients on regular supportive periodontal therapy showed high periodontal stability with minimal gingival recession progression. The number of deep gingival recessions was not associated with OHRQoL.

There is a plethora of studies reporting successful long-term retention of periodontally compromised teeth. However, such teeth are more likely to be extracted during active therapy than during supportive periodontal therapy. With the vastly growing dental implant market, the inclination to extract periodontally compromised teeth has become more pronounced. In this narrative review, relevant literature along with suggested guidelines for dental partitioners are presented, as well as four cases, in which teeth with compromised periodontal prognosis were successfully managed, with follow-ups of up to 36 years. Conclusion: Preserving periodontally compromised teeth should be highly considered, especially because they tend to outlast dental practitioners' expectations as well as the implant alternatives. The decision to replace periodontally compromised teeth with implants should be taken with caution as there is increased evidence that the success rates of implants in treated periodontal disease patients are lower than in patients without the history of periodontitis. Furthermore, there are significantly lower overall costs of treating and maintaining stage III and IV periodontitis-affected teeth with periodontal regeneration than placing and maintaining implants in the long term.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of sesame oil pulling in periodontitis with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), compared to chlorhexidine, for its oral and systemic health benefits.

Method and materials: A total of 120 periodontitis patients, without (Group A; 60)/with (Group B; 60) T2DM, underwent control (chlorhexidine 0.12%; Group A1 and B1) and test (sesame oil pulling; Group A2 and B2) interventions. Plaque index, pocket depth, salivary total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) enzyme-linked-immunosorbent-assay (ELISA), subgingival plaque BANA test, and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) were evaluated at baseline and 30 days post-intervention using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a significant P value set at .05. Group B serum samples were also analyzed for fructosamine and lipid profile.

Results: Both treatment regimens were equivalent in reduction of plaque, pocket depth, and red complex periodontopathogens in Group A and B. Significant increase in salivary T-AOC post-intervention was observed in Group B with both interventions (P .01). Sesame oil pulling significantly decreased systemic CRP and triglyceride levels, with no difference observed with chlorhexidine in Group B.

Conclusion: Sesame oil pulling is equivalent to chlorhexidine for anti-plaque, antibacterial, and antioxidant effects in periodontitis patients with/without T2DM. Systemic anti-inflammatory, cardio-protective benefits (reduction of CRP and triglycerides) make it a better adjunct to scaling and root planing than chlorhexidine in periodontitis with T2DM.

Objectives: The goal of this systematic review was to critically appraise the existing evidence evaluating osteoporosis' effects on dental implant osseointegration and survival rate.

Data source: A search was conducted in two databases, PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus, until October 2024, using the keywords 'osteoporosis,' 'osteopenia,' 'osseointegration,' and 'dental implants'. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies that evaluated the implant placement, complications, and osseointegration results in patients with osteoporosis; literature reviews and clinical studies addressing the outcome were considered; and articles written in English and published since 2000. Descriptive data analysis included author, year of publication, study design, number of patients, osteoporosis assessment, follow-up, and main findings. JBI quality assessment was performed. Overall, 24 articles were included with a total of 2,102 patients; 5,954 dental implants were considered and evaluated. Most studies evaluated bone density for osteoporosis by dual-energy x-ray technology. The follow-up ranged from 1 month to 25 years. Four studies evaluated implants with over 10 years of follow-up. All studies' survival rate was higher than 90%, even for osteoporotic patients. Most studies indicated no differences between osteoporotic and healthy patients regarding marginal bone loss, bone-to-implant contact, cytokine levels, and mineral bone density. A prospective cohort study found a small marginal bone loss (-0.34 mm) in osteoporotic women, but there was insufficient evidence to prove any causal relationship between marginal bone loss and osteoporosis. Another study showed no clinical differences between implants placed in osteoporotic and healthy individuals. In contrast, other studies showed lower stability scores for implants placed in osteoporotic sites and a higher risk of failure for implant placement. Osteoporosis status was not a risk factor for dental implant failure, which was also confirmed by histologic studies. Three studies had a medium risk of bias, and 21 a low risk.

Conclusion: Osteoporosis is not a contraindication for dental implant placement. Osseointegration in patients with osteoporosis is feasible; however, planning must be cautious and personalized for the placement of dental implants.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of different temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnoses according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) and the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) and to compare the diagnoses according to both guidelines.

Method and materials: Clinical examinations of 218 patients with TMD complaints were conducted according to both guidelines. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze the frequency of diagnoses and differences between the guidelines.

Results: Most patients diagnosed with TMD were women and middle-aged. The number of patients in the myofascial pain class was significantly lower for the RDC/TMD classification than for the DC/TMD classification (P = .045). The number of patients in the disc displacement with reduction category was significantly higher for the RDC/TMD classification than for the DC/TMD classification (P .001). Other categories did not exhibit differences between the classifications.

Conclusion: Women and middle-aged individuals are more affected by TMDs. Pain-related TMDs were the most common diagnosis, followed by disc displacement with reduction according to DC/TMD. According to the RDC/TMD classification, myofascial pain, arthralgia, and disc displacement with reduction were the most commonly observed diagnoses, respectively. Significant differences were observed between the pain-related TMD and disc displacement with reduction groups.