Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- 3D printing (2)
- 3D rapid prototyping (2)
- dentoalveolar surgery (2)
- oral and maxillofacial surgery (2)
- simulation training (2)
- Complication management (1)
- Decision (1)
- Fistula (1)
- Flaps (1)
- Grafts (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implantitis (PI) and peri‐implant mucositis (PM) in a long‐term follow‐up with comparison among different PI and PM definitions, and to report on the incidence of PI.
Materials and Methods: In a retrospective clinical study five different PI and PM definitions were applied onto a population with 274 implants 17 to 23 years postimplant placement. Recommendations by the Eighth European Workshop on Periodontology (EWOP) were used as base reference. Clinical and radiological measurements were considered. Risk factors were evaluated in a regression analysis.
Results: After an average observation period of 18.9 years, 40.1% of the implants were diagnosed with PM and 15.0% with PI (Eighth EWOP). PI incidence reached 7.9% on implant level and 13.2% on patient level. Implants diagnosed with PI and progressive bone loss displayed exceptionally vertical bone defect configuration (BDC). Diabetes mellitus, smoking, regular maintenance, or a former periodontal infection did not show significant influence on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases. Patients with bruxism displayed significantly less PM and PI.
Conclusions: Vertical BDC seems to correspond with active PI, wherefore we estimate such a defining factor of importance. Diagnosis of PM and evaluation of probing pocket depths might be only of descriptive interest as they could lead to false‐positive results.
Background: Recent advances in 3D printing technology have enabled the emergence of new educational and clinical tools for medical professionals. This study provides an exemplary description of the fabrication of 3D‐printed individualised patient models and assesses their educational value compared to cadaveric models in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Methods: A single‐stage, controlled cohort study was conducted within the context of a curricular course. A patient's CT scan was segmented into a stereolithographic model and then printed using a fused filament 3D printer. These individualised patient models were implemented and compared against cadaveric models in a curricular oral surgery hands‐on course. Students evaluated both models using a validated questionnaire. Additionally, a cost analysis for both models was carried out. P‐values were calculated using the Mann‐Whitney U test.
Results: Thirty‐eight fourth‐year dental students participated in the study. Overall, significant differences between the two models were found in the student assessment. Whilst the cadaveric models achieved better results in the haptic feedback of the soft tissue, the 3D‐printed individualised patient models were regarded significantly more realistic with regard to the anatomical correctness, the degree of freedom of movement and the operative simulation. At 3.46 € (compared to 6.51 €), the 3D‐printed patient individualised models were exceptionally cost‐efficient.
Conclusions: 3D‐printed patient individualised models presented a realistic alternative to cadaveric models in the undergraduate training of operational skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whilst the 3D‐printed individualised patient models received positive feedback from students, some aspects of the model leave room for improvement.
After removal of a dental implant or extraction of a tooth in the upper jaw, the closure of an oroantral fistula (OAF) or oroantral communication (OAC) can be a difficult problem confronting the dentist and surgeon working in the oral and maxillofacial region. Oroantral communication (OAC) acts as a pathological pathway for bacteria and can cause infection of the antrum, which further obstructs the healing process as it is an unnatural communication between the oral cavity and the maxillary sinus. There are different ways to perform the surgical closure of the OAC. The decision-making in closure of oroantral communication and fistula is influenced by many factors. Consequently, it requires a combination of knowledge, experience, and information gathering. Previous narrative research has focused on assessments and comparisons of various surgical techniques for the closure of OAC/OAF. Thus, the decision-making process has not yet been described comprehensively.
The present study aims to illustrate all the factors that have to be considered in the management of OACs and OAFs that determine optimal treatment.
The prevalence of peri-implant diseases around subcrestally placed implants: a cross-sectional study
(2021)
Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis or periimplantitis for subcrestally placed implants (1–3 mm) on the short-, medium- and long term.
Material and Methods: Two hundred patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study that were treated and screened during regular maintenance visits at one university center. A total of 657 implants were evaluated. Peri-implant health and diseases were assessed according to predefined case definitions. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the correlation with local and systemic factors.
Results: After a median function time of 9.36 ± 6.44 years (range: 1–26 years), the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 66.5% and 15.0%, at the patient level, corresponding to 62.6% and 7.5%, at the implant level, respectively. Peri-implantitis was significantly associated with patients’ history of periodontitis (odds ratio, OR 5.33).
Conclusion: Peri-implant diseases were a common finding around subcrestally placed implants.
