Search

Somma F, Castagnola R, Lajolo C, Paternò Holtzman L, Marigo L. In vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: Dentaport ZX, Raypex 5 and ProPex II. International Endodontic Journal, 45, 552-556, 2012. Abstract Aim To compare in vivo three different electronic root canal length measurement devices: Dentaport ZX, Raypex 5 and ProPex II. Methodology Thirty single-rooted permanent teeth scheduled for extraction because of periodontal disease were selected from 10 adult patients (ranging from 45 to 67 years) and divided into three groups of 10 teeth. Before the extraction, an access cavity was prepared and the crown was adjusted to establish a stable reference point for all measurements. The working length in Group 1 was determined using the Dentaport ZX apex locator. A K-file with the largest diameter that could reach the last green bar on the screen was stabilized in the canal using a dual-curable flow resin composite. The same procedure was used for the Raypex 5 (the file reached the last yellow bar) and Propex II (0.0 orange bar) apex locators. The teeth were then extracted and cleared. The distance between the tip of the file and the major foramen was then calculated for each tooth using digital photography according to Axiovision AC software (Carl Zeiss). Positive values were assigned when the file tip passed beyond the major foramen, negative values when the tip was short of the foramen and zero value when the file tip and the foramen coincided. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test ( P ≤ 0.05). Results Dentaport ZX, Raypex 5 and ProPex ΙΙ produced, respectively, 6, 2 and 4 out of 10 correct measurements, 0, 6 and 5 long measurements and 4, 2, and 1 short measurements. The differences between the three electronic root canal length measurement devices were not significant ( P = 0.507). Conclusions Under the in vivo conditions of this study, the three electronic root canal length measurement devices were not significantly different in terms of locating the major foramen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the changes in periodontal parameters (reduction in probing pocket depth [PPD], gain in clinical attachment level [CAL] and reduction in full-mouth bleeding on probing [BoP]) after subgingival instrumentation of periodontal pockets at different time points in systemically healthy patients suffering from periodontitis., Materials and Methods: Four databases were searched for RCTs that carried out subgingival instrumentation in periodontal pockets and evaluated PPD at a minimum of two consecutive time points other than baseline. The analysis was conducted for both all pocket depths and stratified for initially shallow (4-5 mm) and deep (≥6 mm) pockets and data were extracted for various time points, 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 months. Weighted mean effects (WMEs) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) and predictive intervals were calculated., Results: Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, and all of them were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that for both shallow and deep pockets there was a small though clinically meaningful change between 1- to 2-month and 3- to 4-month time points and between these and 5-6 months., Conclusions: In systemically healthy patients, the greater part of reduction in PPD and gain in CAL occurs within the first 1-2 months after subgingival instrumentation. However, additional benefits in terms of pocket depth reduction occur beyond these early time points., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial with 12 months of follow-up aimed at studying the added effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis., Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited. After a behavioural intervention phase including oral hygiene instructions, patients were randomized to either receiving supra- and sub-marginal instrumentation on their affected implants (control group: 21 patients and 29 implants) or only supra-marginal instrumentation (test group: 21 patients and 24 implants), before undergoing surgery. Changes in the deepest probing pocket depth (PPD) with respect to baseline and a composite outcome of treatment success (no implant loss, no bone loss > 0.5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration on probing [BoP/SoP], and PPD ≤ 5 mm) at the 12-month examination were regarded as the primary outcomes of the trial., Results: At the 12-month examination, changes in the deepest PPD with respect to baseline amounted to -2.96 mm in the control group and to -3.11 mm in the test one (MD = -0.16; SE = 0.56; p = .769), while 21.4% of the implants in the control group and 33.3% in the test group presented treatment success (OR = 1.83; SE = 1.15; p = .338). With the exception of a longer non-surgical treatment duration in the control group (differences in  = -14.29 min; SE = 2.91; p < .001), no other secondary (e.g., soft-tissue recession, keratinized mucosa height, and bone level changes, as well as BoP, SoP, profuse bleeding and implant loss rates) or exploratory (i.e., early wound healing, aesthetics, surgical and total treatment duration, surgery difficulty, intra-operative bleeding, and adverse events) outcome demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups., Conclusions: The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial did not demonstrate an added effect of performing sub-marginal instrumentation 6 weeks before the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Larger clinical trials are however needed to confirm the present findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03620331)., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Periodontology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)