Search

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Implantologie is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Prevention & Treatment For Stomatological Diseases is the property of Journal of Prevention & Treatment For Stomatological Diseases Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.

Aim This study aims to assess patient motivation during implant therapy using the newly developed implant treatment motivation scale. Materials and methods A questionnaire study was conducted, consisting of 15 questions designed to explore the motivating factors behind patients' decision to undergo implant therapy. A total of 50 patients about to undergo implant treatment at the Departments of Periodontology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and Prosthodontics participated in the study.  Results Analysis revealed a consistently high level of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) among all patients undergoing implant therapy. Conclusions The findings highlight the crucial role of motivation in treatment-seeking behavior, emphasizing the importance of dentists in motivating and guiding patients through the process of implant therapy., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre issued approval ST0923-768. The IEC approves the study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, R et al.)

Prosthodontics, which is removable and fixed, is the branch dealing with the replacement of missing teeth. Implant therapy is the popular treatment modality and commonly preferred treatment option by many patients and clinicians for missing teeth in recent years. Primary implant stability (PIS) is one of the crucial factors for osseointegration. It has been considered a crucial factor in the success of implants. Moreover, several factors influence PIS. On the other hand, both secondary implant stability and osseointegration are influenced by the PIS. Bone density, bone volume, bone-to-implant contact, and other factors that enhance or degrade the primary stability. Certain host sites such as the maxillary posterior region demand more dense bone to achieve desired results as they are the low-density areas of the jaw. So, a new promising and growing innovative concept of osseodensification (OD) offers a great solution with multiple benefits and desirable results. This review article aims to enlighten the multiple benefits of OD technique and their mechanism of action., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Khubchandani et al.)