Open Access

Background: In the area of education research, it is well-known that studies of a defi ned question are seldom replicated. Furthermore, e-learning resources with evidence-based content in dentistry have received relatively little attention from researchers. The Context and Purpose of the Study: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate how dentistry students from two consecutive cohorts in their fi rst clinical semester rate a long-standing evidencebased dentistry (EbD) resource in an e-learning environment using a questionnaire of 43 specifi c items on 1) general questions regarding user-friendliness and acceptability, as well as 2) specifi c questions on content and functional range (A), handling and technical aspects (B), and didactics and educational value (C) based on a Likert scale from 0 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 3 = ‘strongly agree’, and how this compares to a primary study in which the resource was addressed as a novelty. The data were analyzed statistically using a one-way ANOVA followed by a Kruskal-Wallis multiple-comparison Z-test. Results: A response rate of 100% was achieved. The majority of the users thought the topic of EbD to be important. The e-learning resource was rated with a score of 2.40 ± 0.66 (on a Likert scale from 1-6 where 1 = "very good" and 6 = "insuffi cient"). 86.15% of the students stated that they consider the resource benefi cial for their study in clinical simulation and in patient treatment courses. The results averaged for A: 1.92 (±0.57; median: 1.928), B: 1.48 (±0.60), and C: 2.27 (±0.67). The obtained results in the replication study showed no statistical signifi cant differences to the primary study. Conclusions: The e-learning resource with dentistry vignettes cases and learning components on evidence-based principles was consistently rated positively by the students. Owing to their agreement with the data of the primary study, the results of the present study point to the remarkable validity of the method of evaluation. This should be addressed in future studies with larger cohorts.

Objectives: To assess the short‐term clinical outcomes of lateral augmentation of deficient extraction sockets and two‐stage implant placement using autogenous tooth roots (TR). Material and methods: A total of n = 13 patients (13 implants) were available for the analysis. At the time of tooth extraction, each subject had received lateral augmentation using the respective non‐retainable but non‐infected tooth root where the thickness of the buccal bone was <0.5 mm or where a buccal dehiscence‐type defect was present. Titanium implants were placed after a submerged healing period of 6 months and loaded after 20 ± 2 weeks (V8). Clinical parameters (e.g., bleeding on probing—BOP, probing pocket depth—PD, mucosal recession—MR, clinical attachment level—CAL) were recorded at V8 and after 26 ± 4 weeks (V9) of implant loading. Results: At V9, all patients investigated revealed non‐significant changes in mean BOP (−19.23 ± 35.32%), PD (0.24 ± 0.49 mm), MR (0.0 ± 0.0 mm) and CAL (0.24 ± 0.49 mm) values, respectively. There was no significant correlation between the initial gain in ridge width and changes in BOP and PD values. Conclusions: The surgical procedure was associated with stable peri‐implant tissues on the short‐term.

The aim of the present study was to discover what influence structured reporting (study group = A) of toothcoloured lab-fabricated restorations has on clinical decision-making following international guidelines. By way of comparison, the conventional approach in the form of short reporting with 5 items (control group = B) was used as gold standard. The study was carried out in the first clinical semester of dentistry (n = 68) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main. In the study group, indirect ceramic restorations were assessed on a scale of 1 (very good) to 5 (insufficient) using structured reporting (7 items, each with 5 subgroups) in accordance to World Dental Federation (FDI) - standards. Following this, the clinical decision on the insertion of the restoration was made. To evaluate the quality of the structured reporting, sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals (Cl) and the respective predictive values (positive = PPV, negative= NPV) were determined. Based on FDI reporting, a ceramic inlay is also favored with a great degree of certainty in clinical decisions: this was the true in 34 procedures out of a total of 38 clinically incorporated ceramic inlays [sensitivity 67% (95% CI: 46%83%); specificity 89% (95% Cl: 75%-97%); PPV 82%, NPV 79%]. In the control group, sensitivity was 56% (95% CI: 35%-75%); specificity 92% (95% CI: 79%-98%); PPV 83%, NPV 74%. No significant differences could be determined between A and B (p = 0.813). Due to the higher sensitivity and efficiency given comparable specificity, structured reporting of tooth-coloured lab-fabricated restorations based on FDI criteria, appears more recommendable than short reporting. It is also suitable for promoting decision-making in quality assessment, thus improving the durability of dental restorations.

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.

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.