METHODS: Twenty patients with two adjacent missing posterior teeth were recruited. Patients were assigned equally and randomly into two groups; Bicon(®) (6 or 8 mm) and Ankylos(®) (8 mm) implants. A two-stage surgical approach and single crowns were used for implant placement and loading. Outcomes included peri-implant clinical parameters, implant stability (Periotest values; PTVs) and peri-implant bone changes, which were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months post-loading.
RESULTS: No implant loss was encountered up to 12 months post-loading. No significant difference in the clinical or radiographic parameters was observed except for PTVs (p < 0.05) that was lower in Ankylos(®) implants.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of short dental implants was associated with excellent 12 months clinical and radiographic outcomes. Ankylos(®) and Bicon(®) implants demonstrated similar peri-implant soft tissue and alveolar bone changes. However, Ankylos(®) implants demonstrated better implant stability at all evaluation intervals.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-seven individuals (42 individuals consuming NW and 45 controls) were included. Clinical (plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss) and radiographic (marginal bone loss) periodontal parameters were compared among NW and control groups. Gingival specimens were taken from subjects in NW and control groups, assessed for ICTP and CTX levels (using ELISA) and analyzed using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The significance of differences in periodontal parameters between the groups was determined using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The percent loss of dry mass over exposure time and the rate of release of ICTP and CTX from all groups were compared using the paired t-test to examine the effects of exposure time.
RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic periodontal parameters were significantly higher in the NW group than the control group (P
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-nine previously treated patients with AgP were re-examined. Clinical and radiographic parameters before treatment discontinuation and at re-examination were compared. OHRQoL at re-call was assessed with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14S).
RESULTS: None of the subjects adhered to suggested periodontal therapy and maintenance after discharge. Mean percentage of sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥6 mm at re-examination was 4.5 ± 5.9%. A total of 182 teeth had been lost over time. Tooth loss rate was 0.14/patient/year. From 68 subjects with documented favorable treatment outcomes, higher percentage of sites with PPD ≥6 mm at re-examination and higher radiographic proximal bone loss was associated with current smoking status. Patients with AgP with <20 teeth at re-call had worse OHRQoL than those with ≥20 teeth. Patients with higher full-mouth mean PPD also reported poorer OHRQoL.
CONCLUSION: Treatment in patients with AgP who smoke and neglect proper supportive care, risk periodontal disease progression. Substantial tooth loss and higher full-mouth mean PPD led to poorer OHRQoL in this cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional solid models of the maxilla, mucosa, and denture of a selected edentulous patient were created using Mimics and CATIA software. The FEA model was created and duplicated in ANSYS 16.0 to perform two simulations for the IOD and the CD models. The values of maximum stress and strain and total deformation were obtained and compared to the outcomes of premaxilla resorption from a parallel clinical study.
RESULTS: The maximum principal stress in the premaxilla in the IOD model ranged from 0.019 to 0.336 MPa, while it ranged from 0.011 to 0.193 MPa in the CD model. The maximum principal strain in the IOD model was 1.75 times greater than that in the CD model. Total deformation was 1.8 times higher in the IOD model. Greater bone resorption was observed in regions of higher stress, which were on the occlusal and buccal sides of the premaxilla residual ridge.
CONCLUSION: Stress, strain, and total deformation values present in the premaxilla area beneath a CD were approximately two times greater in a comparison between an opposing mandibular two-IOD and an opposing mandibular CD. The results were consistent with a parallel clinical study in which the rate of premaxilla bone resorption was almost three times greater in the IOD group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 patients were rehabilitated with maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, and 4 patients were prescribed with conventional CD. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the maxilla were acquired before and 1 year post-treatment and converted into 3D models using Mimics research software. RRR was quantified by measuring the changes in bone volume following superimpositioning and sectioning of these models at the anterior maxillary region. Subsequently, the sectioned 3D models of the anterior maxilla were exported to 3-Matic software to reveal the predominant region and depth of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean reduction in bone volume of the anterior maxilla in the CD group was 2.60% (SD = 1.71%, range = -4.89 % to -0.92%, median = -2.30%), while the mean reduction in the IRO group was almost three times higher at 7.25% (SD = 3.16%, range = -13.25 to -1.50, median = -7.15%). The predominant areas of RRR were on the buccal and occlusal ridge of the anterior maxilla.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that an IRO caused significantly higher RRR of the anterior maxilla than a CD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The test group included 9 participants rehabilitated by maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, while the control group consisted of 4 participants with CDs. Blood flow was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) after denture removal for 0, 30, 60, and 90 minutes. RRR was quantified as reduction in bone volume a year post-treatment. The measurement of blood flow was then compared to the quantification of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean blood flow measure for the IRO group was significantly lower than CD after immediate denture removal and 30 minutes later. After 60 minutes, the mean difference was not significant between groups, and at 90 minutes, the mean blood flow of both groups equalized to reach a steady state of 377 BPU. The mandibular IRO had reduced the initial blood flow measure in the opposing anterior maxilla mucosa to almost a quarter (103 BPU) of the steady state value (377 BPU) compared to the CD, which reduced it to only about one half (183 BPU), suggesting greater blood flow disturbance in the IRO group. This result is in tandem with the greater reduction of bone volume observed in the IRO group, which was 7.3 ± 1.3% after a year, almost three times higher than CD group at 2.6 ± 1.7%.
CONCLUSION: IRO may cause significantly higher blood flow disturbance than CD and may have contributed to greater RRR in the anterior maxilla.