METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study involved consented adult patients with ≥ 1 dental implant. Two calibrated operators examined the patients. BoP was outcome variable and peri-implant gingival biotype was principal predictor variable. The effects of site, implant, and patient level factors on BoP were assessed using a multilevel logistic regression model.
RESULTS: Eighty patients for a total of 119 implants and 714 sites were included in the study. Bleeding on probing was observed in 42 implants (35.29%) with a significant higher risk observed in presence of gingival recession, thin peri-implant gingival biotype, duration of implant placement, smokers, and male patients.
CONCLUSION: Peri-implant bleeding on probing was associated with site specific, implant, and patient level factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 47 patients with 88 IPS e.max Press single crowns were examined at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, using modified United States Public Health Service evaluation criteria (USPHS). These 88 crowned teeth included 19 vital and 69 nonvital teeth that were restored with different post and core materials. The periodontal status was compared using the plaque index (PI), gingival recession (GR), modified papillary bleeding index (MPBI) and probing pocket depth (PPD) between the crowned teeth and contralateral control (sound) teeth.
RESULTS: About 96.6% of the crowns exhibited satisfactory clinical performance. The mean survival rate at three years was 97.7%, and 100% at two years with a low incidence of fractures. There were no staitistically significant differences in the mean gingival recession (p = 0.182) and mean plaque scores (p = 0.102) between crowned and control teeth. The crowned teeth had higher mean MPBI (p = 0.000) and PPD (p = 0.051) compared to the contralateral sound teeth. Periodontal response in relation to subgingival crown margins, was statistically significantly lower regarding pocket depths (p = 0.01) and bleeding on probing (p = 0.00).
CONCLUSION: IPS e.max Press crowns exhibited satisfactory clinical performance with high survival rate. No dentinal sensitivity was recorded. Plaque retention and gingival recession were similar to contralateral control teeth. Poor periodontal health was related to the subgingival crown margins.