Medizin
Refine
Document Type
- Article (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Aggressive periodontitis (1)
- C-reactive protein (1)
- Chronic periodontiti (1)
- Dentition (1)
- Hematology (1)
- Hemorrhage (1)
- Inflammatory diseases (1)
- Interleukin-6 (1)
- Leukocyte elastase (1)
- Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (1)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
Objective: To compare discomfort/pain following periodontal probing around teeth and peri‐implant probing around implants with or without platform switching.
Methods: Two dentists recruited and examined 65 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral tooth. Only two types of implants were included: one with and one without platform switching. Periodontal and peri‐implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth was measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing, patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed as angles between interproximal surfaces on radiographs.
Results: Sixty‐five patients (age 69; 63/76 years [median; lower/upper quartile]; 38 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of mean PPD and PAL (p < .05) clinical parameters (PPD, PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri‐implant probing (VAS: 10; 0.75/16.25) caused significantly (p < .001) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (4; 0/10). Logistic regression analysis identified a larger difference between discomfort/pain for peri‐implant and periodontal probing in the maxilla than the mandible (p = .003). Comparing discomfort/pain between implants maxilla (p = .006) and emergence profile (p = .015) were associated with discomfort/pain. Type of implant (with/without platform switching) had no significant effect on discomfort/pain.
Conclusions: Peri‐implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Implant design with/without platform switching failed to have a significant effect on discomfort/pain.
Aim: Evaluation of long‐term results after connective tissue graft (CTG) using the envelope technique and the effect on patient‐centred outcomes (Oral Health Impact Profile: OHIP) in a private practice setting.
Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients (11 female, mean age: 45.0 ± 8.88 years) underwent root coverage procedure using a CTG involving maxillary Miller class I teeth. Pre‐operatively, 3 and 120 ± 12 months after surgery, all patients were examined, completed OHIP questionnaire, and were asked to assess improvement and their satisfaction with the results of surgery. All procedures were performed by the same investigator.
Results: Recession depth at 3 months of 1.19 ± 0.93 mm was reduced to that of 0.63 ± 0.64 mm at 120 ± 12 months after surgery (p = .117). Recession width (−1.23 ± 2.27 mm) decreased as well (p = .117), while relative root coverage increased from 48.46 ± 32.18% at 3 months to 71.22 ± 30.86% at 120 months (p = .011). The number of cases with complete root coverage increased from two (15.4%) to six (40.0%) from 3 to 120 months (p = .046). OHIP score (12.07 ± 10.15) did not change after 10 years (12.13 ± 9.86, p = .889). Ten years after surgery, 12 patients (80%) reported they would make the decision again to undergo CTG transplantation.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study design with a high risk of bias in a practice setting, long‐term stability of recession reduction, OHIP and patient‐perceived satisfaction remained stable over 10 years.
Aim: To evaluate the level of agreement between the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) and the periodontal risk calculator (PRC).
Materials and methods: Periodontal risk was retrospectively assessed among 50 patients using PRA and PRC. Both methods were modified. PRA by assessing probing pocket depths and bleeding on probing at four (PRA4) and six (PRA6) sites per tooth, PRC by permanently marking or unmarking the dichotomously selectable factors “irregular recall,” “oral hygiene in need of improvement” and “completed scaling and root planing” for PRC. Agreement between PRA and PRCred (summarized risk categories) was determined using weighted kappa.
Results: Fifty patients enrolled in periodontal maintenance (48% female, age: 63.8 ± 11.2 years) participated. PRA4 and PRA6 matched in 32 (64%) patients (κ‐coefficient = 0.48, p < .001). There was 100% agreement between both PRC versions. There was minimal agreement of PRA6 and PRCred (66%, 28% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.34; p = .001). PRA4 and PRCred did not match (60% agreement, 34% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.23; p = .13). For the SPT diagnosis of severe periodontitis, PRA6 and PRCred agreed weakly (κ‐coefficient = 0.44; p = .004).
Conclusion: PRA and PRC showed a minimal agreement. Specific disease severity may result in improved agreement.
Aim: The aim of the study is to assess the long-term effect of active periodontal therapy on serum inflammatory parameters in patients with aggressive (AgP) and chronic (ChP) periodontitis in a non-randomised clinical study.
Methods: Twenty-five ChP and 17 AgP were examined clinically prior to (baseline), 12 weeks and 60 months after subgingival debridement of all pockets within 2 days. Systemic antibiotics were prescribed if Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was detected (10 AgP, 8 ChP), flap surgery was rendered if required. Neutrophil elastase (NE), C-reactive protein (CRP), lipopolysaccharide binding protein, interleukin 6, 8, and leukocyte counts were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks and 60 months.
Results: Clinical parameters improved significantly in both groups from 12 weeks to 60 months. Eleven AgP and 18 ChP patients received surgical treatment after the 12 weeks examination. Only 3 patients in each group attended ≥ 2 supportive maintenance visits per year. NE and CRP were significantly higher in AgP than ChP at baseline and 60 months (p < 0.01). For leukocyte counts in ChP, significant changes were observed (baseline: 6.11 ± 1.44 nl−1; 12 weeks: 5.34 ± 1.40 nl−1; 60 months: 7.73 ± 2.89 nl−1; p < 0.05). Multiple regression analysis identified African origin, surgical treatment and female sex to correlate with better clinical improvement.
Conclusion: Despite comprehensive periodontal treatment, AgP patients exhibit higher NE and CRP levels than ChP patients up to 5 years after therapy.
Clinical relevance: Systemic inflammatory burden in AgP patients is higher than in ChP patients even 5 years after periodontal treatment.
Background: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherent bleeding disorder. Gingival bleeding is a frequently reported symptom of VWD. However, gingival bleeding is also a leading symptom of plaque-induced gingivitis and untreated periodontal disease. In type 1 VWD gingival bleeding was not increased compared to controls. Thus, this study evaluated whether type 2 and 3 VWD determines an increased susceptibility to gingival bleeding in response to the oral biofilm.
Methods: Twenty-four cases and 24 controls matched for age, sex, periodontal diagnosis, number of teeth and smoking were examined hematologically (VWF antigen, VWF activity, factor VIII activity) and periodontally (Gingival Bleeding Index [GBI]), bleeding on probing [BOP], Plaque Control Record [PCR], periodontal inflamed surface area [PISA], vertical probing attachment level).
Results: BOP (VWD: 14.5±10.1%; controls: 12.3±5.3%; p = 0.542) and GBI (VWD: 10.5±9.9%; controls: 8.8±4.8%; p = 0.852) were similar for VWD and controls. Multiple regressions identified female sex, HbA1c, PCR and PISA to be associated with BOP. HbA1c and PCR were associated with GBI. Number of remaining teeth was negatively correlated with BOP and GBI.
Conclusion: Type 2 and 3 VWD are not associated with a more pronounced inflammatory response to the oral biofilm in terms of BOP and GBI.
The α-defensins, human neutrophil peptides (HNPs) are the predominant antimicrobial peptides of neutrophil granules. They are synthesized in promyelocytes and myelocytes as proHNPs, but only processed in promyelocytes and stored as mature HNPs in azurophil granules. Despite decades of search, the mechanisms underlying the posttranslational processing of neutrophil defensins remain unidentified. Thus, neither the enzyme that processes proHNPs nor the localization of processing has been identified. It has been hypothesized that proHNPs are processed by the serine proteases highly expressed in promyelocytes: Neutrophil elastase (NE), cathepsin G (CG), and proteinase 3 (PR3), all of which are able to process recombinant proHNP into HNP in vitro. We investigated whether serine proteases are in fact responsible for processing of proHNP in human bone marrow cells and in human and murine myeloid cell lines. Subcellular fractionation of the human promyelocytic cell line PLB-985 demonstrated proHNP processing to commence in fractions containing endoplasmic reticulum. Processing of 35S-proHNP was insensitive to serine protease inhibitors. Simultaneous knockdown of NE, CG, and PR3 did not decrease proHNP processing in primary human bone marrow cells. Furthermore, introduction of NE, CG, and PR3 into murine promyelocytic cells did not enhance the proHNP processing capability. Finally, two patients suffering from Papillon–Lefèvre syndrome, who lack active neutrophil serine proteases, demonstrated normal levels of fully processed HNP in peripheral neutrophils. Contradicting earlier assumptions, our study found serine proteases dispensable for processing of proHNPs in vivo. This calls for study of other protease classes in the search for the proHNP processing protease(s).