Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Abrasion (1)
- Decontamination (1)
- Dental air (1)
- Dental implants (1)
- Peri-implantitis (1)
- furcation involvement (1)
- long-term success (1)
- long-term survival (1)
- periodontal disease progression (1)
- periodontal risk assessment (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Objective: To evaluate the benefit of resective surgical periodontal therapy (root amputation or resection, root separation, tunnelling) in periodontitis patients exhibiting class II and III furcation involvement (FI) compared with non‐surgical treatment (SRP) or open flap debridement (OFD).
Material: Outcomes were tooth survival (primary), vertical probing attachment gain, and reduction in probing pocket depth (secondary) evidenced by randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case series with ≥ 12 months of follow‐up. Search was performed on 3 electronic databases from January 1998 to December 2018.
Results: From a total of 683 articles, 66 studies were identified for full‐text analysis and 7 studies finally included. Six hundred sixty‐seven patients contributed 2,021 teeth with class II or III FI. Data were very heterogeneous regarding follow‐up and distribution of FI. A total of 1,515 teeth survived 4 to 30.8 years after therapy. Survival ranged from 38%–94.4% (root amputation or resection, root separation), 62%–67% (tunnelling), 63%–85% (OFD) and 68%–80% (SRP). Overall, treatment provided better results for class II FI than class III.
Conclusion: Within their limits, the data indicate that in class II and III FI, SRP and OFD may result in similar survival rates as root amputation/resection, root separation or tunnelling.
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.
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.
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.