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]

The periodontal ligament is located between the bone (alveolar bone) and the cementum of the tooth, and it is connected by tough fibers called Sharpey's fibers. To maintain healthy teeth, the foundation supporting the teeth must be healthy. Periodontal diseases, also known as tooth loss, cause the alveolar bone to dissolve. The alveolar bone, similar to the bones in other body parts, is repeatedly resorbed by osteoclasts and renewed by osteogenic cells. This means that an old bone is constantly being resorbed and replaced by a new bone. In periodontal diseases, the alveolar bone around the teeth is absorbed, and as the disease progresses, the alveolar bone shrinks gradually. In most cases, the resorbed alveolar bone does not return to its original form even after periodontal disease is cured. Gum covers the tooth surface so that it matches the shape of the resorbed alveolar bone, exposing more of the tooth surface than before, making the teeth look longer, leaving gaps between the teeth, and in some cases causing teeth to sting. Previously, the only treatment for periodontal diseases was to stop the disease from progressing further before the teeth fell out, and restoration to the original condition was almost impossible. However, a treatment method that can help in the regeneration of the supporting tissues of the teeth destroyed by periodontal diseases and the restoration of the teeth to their original healthy state as much as possible is introduced. Recently, with improvements in implant material properties, implant therapy has become an indispensable treatment method in dentistry and an important prosthetic option. Treatment methods and techniques, which are mainly based on experience, have gradually accumulated scientific evidence, and the number of indications for treatment has increased. The development of bone augmentation methods has contributed remarkably to the expansion of indications, and this has been made possible by various advances in materials science. The induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) cell technology for regenerating periodontal tissues, including alveolar bone, is expected to be applied in the treatment of diseases, such as tooth loss and periodontitis. This review focuses on the alveolar bone and describes clinical practice, techniques, and the latest basic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cases of severely compromised teeth, dental practitioners are confronted with the therapeutic decision of whether to restore a tooth or replace it with an implant. Comparative scientific evidence on patient perception of both treatment approaches is scarce. The subject of this prospective clinical study was to compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between two treatment groups: restoration of severely destroyed teeth after orthodontic extrusion (FOE) versus tooth extraction and implant-supported single crown restoration (ISC). A self-selected trial was performed with 21 patients per group. OHRQoL was assessed with the aid of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G49) at different time intervals: before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), after restoration (T3) and at recall (T4). Overall, OHIP scores improved from baseline to follow-up for both concepts with no significant differences between groups. There were no significant differences in subscales between FOE and ISC at T1, T3 and T4. In terms of functional limitations (p = 0.003) and physical disability (p = 0.021), patients in the FOE group temporarily exhibited lower OHRQoL at T2 in comparison to the ISC group. However, at baseline, after final restoration and at recall, the study demonstrates the same level of OHRQoL for both treatment concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives: The aim was to evaluate the current literature on the influence of inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease) in dental implant osseointegration in human clinical studies. Materials and methods: This review was conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were electronic screened to find relevant articles published until October 2021. The inclusion criteria consisted of human clinical studies that reported the use of dental implant in patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. Risk of bias was assessed according to The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology criteria. Results: A total of 786 studies were identified from databases. Of these, six studies were included in the review and reported the use of implants in patients with Crohn's disease. No articles were available for ulcerative colitis. Included articles indicated that Crohn's disease may determine early and late implant failure. Besides Crohn's disease, several patients presented associated risk factors and systemic disease that determined implant failure. Conclusions: The presence of clinical studies on the influence of IBD in implant therapy is low. When recommending an implant therapy to IBD patients, the multidisciplinary team should be aware of side effects and a close collaboration between members of this team is necessary. More data are needed to sustain the effect of IBD on implant therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]