Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (2)
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.
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.