Search

Aim: To assess the esthetic and clinical performance of a novel self‐tapping implant system for single‐tooth restorations in the esthetic zone after immediate placement and provisionalization. Materials and Methods: This cross‐sectional study included 52 patients contributing a total of 52 immediately placed and restored implants with ≥12 months after functional loading, comparing two different implant systems: Straumann® BLX (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; 25 patients) and Ankylos® (Dentsply Sirona, Hanau, Germany; 27 patients). As the primary outcome measure, peri‐implant tissue esthetics were assessed by means of pink esthetics score (PES) rated by three independent clinicians. Moreover, as secondary outcome measures, the peri‐implant tissue health was assessed by means of bleeding on probing, probing depth, and suppuration. Apart from that, the modified plaque index, keratinized mucosa width, and the presence of mucosal recessions were also assessed. When clinical signs suggested the possibility of peri‐implantitis, radiographs were indicated to assess progressive bone loss. Results: The mean PES ratings were 12.10 ± 1.10 for Ankylos versus 11.2 ± 1.86 for BLX, both achieving good esthetic results without significant differences (p = 0.143). There were no differences among most clinical parameters (plaque, bleeding on probing, probing depth, peri‐implant mucosal recession), although peri‐implant mucositis was present in one‐third of the cases. The inter‐rater agreement on esthetics was not significant (p < 0.250). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the use of either BLX or Ankylos implant systems was associated to comparable peri‐implant health and good pink esthetic outcomes during immediate implantation and restoration protocols, for at least 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop and validate models based on logistic regression and artificial intelligence for prognostic prediction of molar survival in periodontally affected patients. Materials and Methods: Clinical and radiographic data from four different centres across four continents (two in Europe, one in the United States, and one in China) including 515 patients and 3157 molars were collected and used to train and test different types of machine‐learning algorithms for their prognostic ability of molar loss over 10 years. The following models were trained: logistic regression, support vector machine, K‐nearest neighbours, decision tree, random forest, artificial neural network, gradient boosting, and naive Bayes. In addition, different models were aggregated by means of the ensembled stacking method. The primary outcome of the study was related to the prediction of overall molar loss (MLO) in patients after active periodontal treatment. Results: The general performance in the external validation settings (aggregating three cohorts) revealed that the ensembled model, which combined neural network and logistic regression, showed the best performance among the different models for the prediction of MLO with an area under the curve (AUC) = 0.726. The neural network model showed the best AUC of 0.724 for the prediction of periodontitis‐related molar loss. In addition, the ensembled model showed the best calibration performance. Conclusions: Through a multi‐centre collaboration, both prognostic models for the prediction of molar loss were developed and externally validated. The ensembled model showed the best performance in terms of both discrimination and validation, and it is made freely available to clinicians for widespread use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the common practices of dental implant maintenance among dental hygiene professionals (DHP) in Israel (IL) and Germany (GE). Methods: An online questionnaire was developed by the Periodontology Departments of Tel Aviv (IL) and Frankfurt University (GE) to address demographics, training, prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases. The questionnaire was distributed by DHP associations via social media. Results: The responses of 376 DHPs (IL: 169; GE: 207) were analysed. Most participants were female (IL: 168/99%; GE: 203/98%), had received education (IL: 179/97%; GE: 207/97%) and were working in their home countries (IL: 182/99%; GE: 211/99%). Peri‐implant probing was not performed by 22% of DHPs in IL and 5% in GE. Of the DHPs who used probes, 49% used metal probes in IL, while 40% used plastic probes in GE (p < 0.001). A majority of DHPs performed peri‐implant instrumentation (IL: 168/99%; GE: 190/92%). Most DHPs from IL did not use devices other than hand and/or sonic/ultrasonic instruments for peri‐implant cleaning (IL: 130/77%; GE 5/2%); in GE, the use of airflow (IL: 31/18%; GE: 199/96%) is popular (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Most DHPs in IL and GE perform peri‐implant probing and debridement. However, there are some distinct differences between the two countries regarding the choice of instruments and treatment regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Parodontologie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis (Berlin, Germany) 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 Parodontologie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis (Berlin, Germany) 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 Parodontologie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis (Berlin, Germany) 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 Parodontologie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis (Berlin, Germany) 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.)