Search

Introduction: Periodontitis is the main indication for dental extraction and often leads to peri‐implantitis (PI). Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is an effective means of preserving ridge dimensions after extraction. However, whether PI prevalence is lower after ARP for extraction after periodontitis remains unclear. This study investigated PI after ARP in patients with periodontitis. Materials and Methods: This study explored the 138 dental implants of 113 patients. The reasons for extraction were categorized as periodontitis or nonperiodontitis. All implants were placed at sites treated using ARP. PI was diagnosed on the basis of radiographic bone loss of ≥3 mm, as determined through comparison of standardized bitewing radiographs obtained immediately after insertion with those obtained after at least 6 months. Chi‐square and two‐sample t testing and generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model were employed to identify risk factors for PI. Statistical significance was indicated by p < 0.05. Results: The overall PI prevalence was 24.6% (n = 34). The GEE univariate logistic regression demonstrated that implant sites and implant types were significantly associated with PI (premolar vs. molar: crude odds ratios [OR] = 5.27, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.15–12.87, p = 0.0003; bone level vs. tissue level: crude OR = 5.08, 95% CI = 2.10–12.24; p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for confounding factors, the risks of PI were significantly associated with implant sites (premolar vs. molar: adjusted OR [AOR] = 4.62, 95% CI = 1.74–12.24; p = 0.002) and implant types (bone level vs. tissue level: AOR = 6.46, 95% CI = 1.67–25.02; p = 0.007). The reason for dental extraction—that is, periodontitis or nonperiodontitis—was not significantly associated with PI. Conclusion: ARP reduces the incidence of periodontitis‐related PI at extraction sites. To address the limitations of our study, consistent and prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Discretionary, energy‐dense, nutrient‐poor food and drinks are heavily marketed and readily available in retail settings frequented by adolescents. This study examines associations between food purchasing practices in various retail settings and dietary intake among Australian adolescents. Methods: Participants were students in years 8 to 11 (ages 12‐17 years) who completed the 2009‐10 (n = 13 790), 2012‐13 (n = 10 309) or 2018 (n = 9102) National Secondary Students' Diet and Activity (NaSSDA) cross‐sectional survey. Multistage stratified random sampling was used. An online survey completed at school assessed self‐reported frequency of food purchasing practices in various retail settings and consumption of discretionary food, sugary drinks, fruit and vegetables. Generalised linear regression models examined associations between food purchasing practices and dietary behaviour. Results: Relative to students who brought lunch from home, those who purchased lunch from school or nearby outlets reported higher intake of discretionary food and sugary drinks and lower fruit intake. Buying lunch from school was also associated with lower vegetable intake. Buying food or drinks on the school commute, outside school grounds during school hours, from supermarket checkouts, and using mobile phone apps were each associated with higher discretionary food and sugary drink intake (all P <.01). Conclusions: Purchasing food or drink in various retail settings is associated with higher intake of discretionary food and drink among Australian adolescents, and some purchasing practices appeared to displace fruit and vegetable intake. So What?: These findings highlight a need to improve the accessibility and promotion of healthier food and drink options in schools and other retail settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]