Search

The aim of our study was to correlate systemic bone loss by evaluating human Dickkopf-related protein 1 (Dkk-1) biomarker compared to horizontal bone loss as well as the presence and size of periapical lesions assessed by dental X-ray (ortopantomography—OPT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients with cancer in the ears, nose and throat (ENT) region vs. healthy controls. The study included 63 subjects divided into a study group of 33 cancer patients with ENT cancer (larynx/oropharynx/sinuses) and a control group of 30 healthy individuals. Blood samples were collected from both groups to assess Dkk-1 level using a sandwich enzyme immunoassay. The dental radiological examination consisted of a panoramic X-ray and a CBCT in order to appraise the horizontal bone loss, the presence and size of the periapical lesions in 2D vs. 3D images. The panoramic X-ray showed that in the control group, the maximum bone loss reached 13.2 mm, with an average of 4.930 ± 3.258 mm, while in the study group, the maximum horizontal bone loss was 11.3 mm, with an average of 5.191 ± 2.109 mm. The CBCT 3D investigation, when compared to the OPT, showed increased values for horizontal bone loss, both in the control group and in the study group; in the control group, the maximum bone loss reached 14.10 mm, with an average of 5.736 ± 3.471 mm, and in the study group, the maximum value was 12.40 mm, and the average was again slightly higher (6.152 ± 2.519 mm). The mean value for Dkk-1 in cancer patients was 1.209 ± 0.110 ng/mL, significantly lower than the value observed in healthy patients (1.712 ± 0.100 ng/mL). CBCT revealed higher values for the investigated parameters when compared to panoramic X-rays. Taking into account the preliminary nature of our study, we observed a significant correlation between the level of bone loss recorded by the Dkk-1 biomarker and radiological dental examination in patients with ENT cancer when compared to the control group.

Different methods and products have been investigated as measures of adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing (SRP). Probiotic use has gained interest for this particular application, especially Lactobacillus spp. This split-mouth interventional prospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects of L. reuteri DSM 17938 with local application in periodontal pockets of severe periodontitis patients. The study was conducted on 40 subjects with stage 3–4 periodontitis who, based on a split-mouth model, followed SRP and SRP + L. reuteri solution in five weekly sessions. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline and at three months after probiotic treatment completion. Both SRP and SRP + L. reuteri generated significant improvements of all three clinical parameters, but the changes were significantly better for SRP + L. reuteri treated sites. Therefore, we can conclude that adjunctive therapy with L. reuteri DSM 17938 could represent an interesting treatment option, particularly for severe periodontitis cases.

Orthodontic treatment in patients with no periodontal tissue breakdown vs. horizontal bone loss should be approached with caution even though it can bring significant benefits in terms of periodontal recovery and long-term success. We used the finite element method (FEM) to simulate various clinical scenarios regarding the periodontal involvement: healthy with no horizontal bone loss, moderate periodontal damage (33%) and severe horizontal bone loss (66%). Afterwards, forces of different magnitudes (0.25 N, 1 N, 3 N, and 5 N) were applied in order to observe the behavioral patterns. Through mathematical modeling, we recorded the maximum equivalent stresses (σ ech), the stresses on the direction of force application (σ c) and the displacements produced (f) in the whole tooth–periodontal ligament–alveolar bone complex with various degrees of periodontal damage. The magnitude of lingualization forces in the lower anterior teeth influences primarily the values of equivalent tension, then those of the tensions in the direction in which the force is applied, and lastly those of the displacement of the lower central incisor. However, in the case of the lower lateral incisor, it influences primarily the values of the tensions in the direction in which the force is applied, then those of equivalent tensions, and lastly those of displacement. Anatomical particularities should also be considered since they may contribute to increased periodontal risk in case of lingualization of the LLI compared to that of the LCI, with a potential emergence of the “wedge effect”. To minimize periodontal hazards, the orthodontic force applied on anterior teeth with affected periodontium should not exceed 1 N.

(1) Background: Pain is the most common complaint of patients with fixed orthodontic treatment, especially when applying and activating the orthodontic device. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in reducing pain caused by the orthodontic treatment has been frequently studied over the last few years. In this study, we aim to evaluate the influence of laser therapy on pain caused by orthodontic forces acting on periodontal tissues during fixed orthodontic treatment. (2) Methods: A total of 36 patients who met the inclusion criteria were submitted to laser therapy after beginning a fixed orthodontic treatment. For each patient, one half-arch was treated with laser (HL), the opposite one being the control half-arch (HC). The evaluation of pain was conducted by asking the patients to rate their pain on a VAS scale from 0 to 10. (3) Results: Analyzing the VAS score values reported after applying the orthodontic device, we noticed that the pain increased in the first few hours, it was the highest 24 h after application, and it decreased towards the 7th day. The pain reported by most patients was significantly reduced in the HL compared to the HC, in all three moments that were evaluated (p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: Repeated LLLT in patients with orthodontic treatment leads to a significant decrease in pain levels, as the comparison between the laser half-arch and the control half-arch showed.