Institute
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (15) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (15)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (15)
Schlagworte
- tooth loss (4)
- periodontitis (3)
- Model (2)
- Periodontal treatment (2)
- Prognostic tool (2)
- Risk factors (2)
- Tooth loss (2)
- furcation involvement class III (2)
- long-term success (2)
- long-term tooth survival (2)
Institut
- Medizin (15)
Aim: Comparison of the clinical efficacy (digitally volumetric, aesthetic, patient-centred outcomes) of tunnel technique (TUN) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) versus coronally advanced flap (CAF) with enamel matrix derivate (EMD) 5 years after gingival recession therapy. Materials and methods: In 18 patients contributing 36 RT1 recessions, study models were collected at baseline and follow-ups. Optical scans assessed recessions computer-assisted [recession depth, recession reduction (RECred), complete root coverage (CRC), percentage of root coverage (RC), pointwise (pTHK) and mean areal (aTHK) marginal soft tissue thickness]. Root coverage aesthetic Score (RES) was used for aesthetic evaluation and visual analogue scales for patient-centred data collection applied. Results: Sixty months after surgery, 50.0% (TUN+CTG) and 0.0% (CAF+EMD) of sites showed CRC (p = 0.0118), 82.2% (TUN+CTG) and 32.0% (CAF+EMD) achieved RC, respectively (p = 0.0023). CTG achieved significantly better RECred (TUN+CTG: 1.75±0.74 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.50 ± 0.39 mm; p = 0.0009) and aTHK (TUN+CTG: 0.95 ± 0.41 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.26 ± 0.28 mm; p = 0.0013). RES showed superior outcomes (p = 0.0533) for TUN+CTG (6.86 ± 2.31) compared to CAF+EMD (4.63 ± 1.99). The study failed to find significant differences related to patient-centred outcomes (TUN+CTG: 8.30 ± 2.21; CAF+EMD: 7.50 ± 1.51; p = 0.1136). Conclusions: Five years after treatment, CTG resulted in better clinical and aesthetic outcomes than CAF+EMD. Increased THK was associated with improved outcomes for RECred and RC.
Objectives: Evaluation of surgical and non-surgical air-polishing in vitro efficacy for implant surface decontamination.
Material and methods: One hundred eighty implants were distributed to three differently angulated bone defect models (30°, 60°, 90°). Biofilm was imitated using indelible red color. Sixty implants were used for each defect, 20 of which were air-polished with three different types of glycine air powder abrasion (GAPA1–3) combinations. Within 20 equally air-polished implants, a surgical and non-surgical (with/without mucosa mask) procedure were simulated. All implants were photographed to determine the uncleaned surface. Changes in surface morphology were assessed using scanning electron micrographs (SEM).
Results: Cleaning efficacy did not show any significant differences between GAPA1–3 for surgical and non-surgical application. Within a cleaning method significant (p < 0.001) differences for GAPA2 between 30° (11.77 ± 2.73%) and 90° (7.25 ± 1.42%) in the non-surgical and 30° (8.26 ± 1.02%) and 60° (5.02 ± 0.84%) in the surgical simulation occurred. The surgical use of air-polishing (6.68 ± 1.66%) was significantly superior (p < 0.001) to the non-surgical (10.13 ± 2.75%). SEM micrographs showed no surface damages after use of GAPA.
Conclusions: Air-polishing is an efficient, surface protective method for surgical and non-surgical implant surface decontamination in this in vitro model. No method resulted in a complete cleaning of the implant surface.
Clinical relevance: Air-polishing appears to be promising for implant surface decontamination regardless of the device.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a prognostic tool to estimate long-term tooth retention in periodontitis patients at the beginning of active periodontal therapy (APT). Material and methods: Tooth-related factors (type, location, bone loss (BL), infrabony defects, furcation involvement (FI), abutment status), and patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, diabetes, plaque control record) were investigated in patients who had completed APT 10 years before. Descriptive analysis was performed, and a generalized linear-mixed model-tree was used to identify predictors for the main outcome variable tooth loss. To evaluate goodness-of-fit, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using cross-validation. A bootstrap approach was used to robustly identify risk factors while avoiding overfitting. Results: Only a small percentage of teeth was lost during 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT; 0.15/year/patient). The risk factors abutment function, diabetes, and the risk indicator BL, FI, and age (≤ 61 vs. > 61) were identified to predict tooth loss. The prediction model reached an AUC of 0.77. Conclusion: This quantitative prognostic model supports data-driven decision-making while establishing a treatment plan in periodontitis patients. In light of this, the presented prognostic tool may be of supporting value. Clinical relevance: In daily clinical practice, a quantitative prognostic tool may support dentists with data-based decision-making. However, it should be stressed that treatment planning is strongly associated with the patient’s wishes and adherence. The tool described here may support establishment of an individual treatment plan for periodontally compromised patients.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a prognostic tool to estimate long-term tooth retention in periodontitis patients at the beginning of active periodontal therapy (APT). Material and methods: Tooth-related factors (type, location, bone loss (BL), infrabony defects, furcation involvement (FI), abutment status), and patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, diabetes, plaque control record) were investigated in patients who had completed APT 10 years before. Descriptive analysis was performed, and a generalized linear-mixed model-tree was used to identify predictors for the main outcome variable tooth loss. To evaluate goodness-of-fit, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using cross-validation. A bootstrap approach was used to robustly identify risk factors while avoiding overfitting. Results: Only a small percentage of teeth was lost during 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT; 0.15/year/patient). The risk factors abutment function, diabetes, and the risk indicator BL, FI, and age (≤ 61 vs. > 61) were identified to predict tooth loss. The prediction model reached an AUC of 0.77. Conclusion: This quantitative prognostic model supports data-driven decision-making while establishing a treatment plan in periodontitis patients. In light of this, the presented prognostic tool may be of supporting value. Clinical relevance: In daily clinical practice, a quantitative prognostic tool may support dentists with data-based decision-making. However, it should be stressed that treatment planning is strongly associated with the patient’s wishes and adherence. The tool described here may support establishment of an individual treatment plan for periodontally compromised patients.
Background and Objective: Long-term tooth retention is the ultimate goal of periodontal therapy. Aim of this study was to evaluate tooth loss (TL) during 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in periodontal compromised patients and to identify factors influencing TL on patient level. Material and Methods: Patients were re-examined 120 ± 12 months after active periodontal therapy. TL and risk factors [smoking, initial diagnosis, SPT adherence, interleukin-1 polymorphism, cardiovascular diseases, age at baseline, bleeding on probing (BOP), change of practitioner, insurance status, number of SPT, marital and educational status] influencing TL on patient level were assessed. Results: One-hundred patients (52 female, mean age 65.6 ± 11 years) lost 121 of 2428 teeth (1.21 teeth/patient; 0.12 teeth/patient/y) during 10 years of SPT. Forty-two of these were lost for periodontal reasons (0.42 teeth/patient; 0.04 teeth/patient/y). Significantly more teeth were lost due to other reasons (P < .001). Smoking, baseline severity of periodontitis, non-adherent SPT, positive interleukin-1 polymorphism, marital and educational status, private insurance, older age at baseline and BOP, small number of SPT were identified as patient-related risk factors for TL (P < .05). Conclusion: During 120 ± 12 months of SPT, only a small number of teeth was lost in periodontally compromised patients showing the positive effect of a well-established periodontal treatment concept. The remaining risk for TL should be considered using risk-adopted SPT allocation.
Background: Estimating prognosis of periodontally affected teeth at the beginning of supportive periodontal care (SPC) is an important component for further treatment planning. This study aimed to evaluate tooth loss (TL) during 10 years of SPC in periodontally compromised patients and to identify tooth-related factors affecting TL.
Methods: Patients were re-examined 120 ± 12 months after accomplishment of active periodontal therapy. TL was defined as primary outcome variable and tooth-related factors (abutment status, furcation involvement [FI], tooth mobility, mean periodontal probing depth [PD], and clinical attachment level [CAL] at beginning of SPC, and initial bone loss [BL]) were estimated based on an adjusted regression analyses model.
Results: Ninety-seven patients (51 females and 46 males; mean age, 65.3 ± 11 years) lost 119 of 2,323 teeth (overall TL [OTL]: 0.12 teeth/patient/y) during 10 years of SPC. Forty of these teeth (33.6%) were lost for periodontal reasons (TLP; 0.04 teeth/patient/y). Significantly more teeth were lost due to other reasons (P <0.0001). TLP (OTL) only occurred in 5.9% (14.7%) of all teeth, when BL was at least 80%. Use as abutment tooth, FI degree III, tooth mobility degrees I and II, mean PD, and CAL positively correlated with OTL (P <0.05). For TLP, FI and tooth mobility degree III as well as mean CAL were identified as tooth-related prognostic factors (P <0.05).
Conclusions: During 10 years of SPC, most of the teeth (93.4%) of periodontally compromised patients were retained, showing the positive effect of a well-established treatment concept. Well-known tooth-related prognostic factors were confirmed.
Background: A similar long-term stable clinical attachment level (CAL) of infrabony defects (IBDs) after regenerative treatment compared to control teeth would indicate a high level of stability resulting from the regenerative approach. Methods: Patients with a regeneratively treated IBD were screened 120 ± 12 months postoperatively for eligibility for study participation, and were included if complete baseline and 12-month examinations (plaque (PlI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), CAL) were available and a respective control tooth could be identified. Re-examination included clinical examination (PPD, CAL, PlI/GI, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, gingival bleeding index). Results: A total of 27 patients (16 females; age (median; lower/upper quartile): 57.0; 44.0/60.0 years; 6 smokers) contributed 27 IBDs (test), for each of which a control tooth was identified. Five test teeth (18.5%) were lost between 12 and 120 months. The remaining 22 test teeth revealed a significant CAL gain after 1 (2.5 mm; 1.0/4.0 mm, p < 0.0001) and 10 (2.5 mm; 0.5/3.5 mm, p < 0.0001) years, whereas control teeth were stable (1 year: 0.0 mm; 0.0/1.0 mm, p = 0.396; 10 years: 0.0 mm; −1.0/1.5 mm, p = 0.215). The study did not detect any significant CAL change between 1 and 10 years for test (−0.5 mm; −1.0/0.5 mm, p = 0.414) and control teeth (0.0 mm; −1.0/1.0 mm, p = 0.739). In 15 patients, test and control teeth revealed stable CAL values between 12 and 120 months. Conclusion: Regenerative treatment of IBDs exhibited stability comparable to non-surgically treated, periodontally reduced sites over a 10-year period.
Aim: A retrospective evaluation of patients with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome (PLS) treated with dental implants to identify factors that may influence treatment outcomes. Methods: All PLS patients with dental implants currently registered at the Department of Periodontology, Goethe-University Frankfurt (20–38 years; mean: 29.6 years), were recruited. Five patients from three families (two pairs of siblings) with a total of 48 dental implants (inserted in different dental institutions) were included with a follow-up time of 2.5–20 years (mean: 10.4 years). Results: Implant failure occurred in three patients (at least 15 implants). Nearly all patients demonstrated peri-implantitis in more or less advanced stages; 60% of patients demonstrated bone loss ≥50% around the implants. Two patients did not follow any supportive therapy. Conclusions: Implants in PLS patients who did not follow any maintenance programme had a high risk of peri-implantitis and implant loss.
Periodontal furcation lesions: a survey of diagnosis and management by general dental practitioners
(2021)
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore general dental practitioners' (GDPs) attitude to periodontal furcation involvement (FI). Materials and methods: An online survey focused on diagnosis and management of periodontal FI was circulated to GDPs in seven different countries. Results: A total of 400 responses were collected. Nearly a fifth of participants reported rarely or never taking 6-point pocket charts; 65.8% of participants had access to a Nabers probe in their practice. When shown clinical pictures and radiographs of FI-involved molars, the majority of participants correctly diagnosed it. Although 47.1% of participants were very/extremely confident in detecting FI, only 8.9% felt very/extremely confident at treating it. Differences in responses were detected according to country and year of qualification, with a trend towards less interest in periodontal diagnosis and treatment in younger generations. Lack of knowledge of management/referral pathways (reported by 22.8%) and lack of correct equipment were considered the biggest barriers to FI management. Most participants (80.9%) were interested in learning more about FI, ideally face to face followed by online tutorials. Conclusions: Plans should be put in place to improve general dentists' knowledge and ability to manage FI, as this can have a significant impact on public health.
Objective: To assess tooth loss (TL) in initially periodontally healthy/gingivitis (PHG) and periodontally compromised (PC) individuals during a 15- to 25-year follow-up in a specialist practice and to identify the factors influencing TL. Materials and methods: Patients were re-examined 240 ± 60 months after active periodontal therapy (PC) or initial examination (PHG). PHG patients were periodontally healthy or had gingivitis, and PC patients exhibited at least stage II periodontitis. TL, patient-related outcomes, and risk factors for TL were assessed at the patient level (group-relation, gender, age, smoking, bleeding on probing, educational status, mean number of visits/year). Results: Fifty-six PC patients receiving regular supportive periodontal care (12 female, mean age 49.1 ± 10.9 years, stage II: 10, stage III/IV: 46) lost 38 teeth (0.03 ± 0.05 teeth/year). Fifty-one PHG patients (23 female, mean age 34.5 ± 12.4 years) following regular oral prevention lost 39 teeth (0.04 ± 0.05 teeth/year) (p = .631). Both PC and PHG groups did not show any significant differences regarding visual analogue scale measurements [aesthetics (p = .309), chewing function (p = .362), hygiene (p = .989)] and overall Oral Health Impact Profile (p = .484). Age at the start of follow-up was identified as a risk factor for TL (p < .0001). Conclusion: PC and PHG patients exhibited similarly small TL rates over 240 ± 60 months, which should, however, be interpreted with caution in view of the group heterogeneity. Clinical trial number: DRKS00018840 (URL: https://drks.de).