METHODS: Twenty patients with two adjacent missing posterior teeth were recruited. Patients were assigned equally and randomly into two groups; Bicon(®) (6 or 8 mm) and Ankylos(®) (8 mm) implants. A two-stage surgical approach and single crowns were used for implant placement and loading. Outcomes included peri-implant clinical parameters, implant stability (Periotest values; PTVs) and peri-implant bone changes, which were assessed at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months post-loading.
RESULTS: No implant loss was encountered up to 12 months post-loading. No significant difference in the clinical or radiographic parameters was observed except for PTVs (p < 0.05) that was lower in Ankylos(®) implants.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of short dental implants was associated with excellent 12 months clinical and radiographic outcomes. Ankylos(®) and Bicon(®) implants demonstrated similar peri-implant soft tissue and alveolar bone changes. However, Ankylos(®) implants demonstrated better implant stability at all evaluation intervals.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 20 IFPP (mean age 47.0; SD 12.9 years) and 28 ISOD (mean age 61.5; SD 9.1 years) patients received 2 mandibular implants. Metal ceramic nonsplinted fixed prostheses were provided in IFPP group, while in ISOD group, the mandibular overdentures were retained by nonsplinted attachments. Patients rated their oral health-related quality of life using OHIP-14 Malaysian version at baseline (T0), 2-3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) postimplant treatment. Mean OHIP-14 for total and domain scores between groups and intervals was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for the comparison of mean score change and effect size, while the association between pre- and post-treatment scores was determined using multivariate linear regression modelling.
RESULTS: The total OHIP and domain scores before implant treatment were significantly higher (lower OHRQoL) in IFPP than in ISOD groups, except for physical pain where this domain showed similar impact in both groups. Postimplant scores between groups at T1 and T2 showed no significant difference. The mean score changes at T0-T1 and T0-T2 for total OHIP-14 and domains were significantly greater in IFPP except in the domains of physical pain and disability which showed no difference. Large effect size (ES) was observed for total OHIP-14 in IFPP while moderate in ISOD. Improved OHRQoL was dependent on the treatment group and pretreatment score.
CONCLUSION: Improvement in OHRQoL occurred following both mandibular implant-supported overdentures and implant fixed partial prostheses.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with 88 LD crowns using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates. The questionnaire for predictors included 3 aspects: (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) oral health habits (tooth brushing frequency, flossing frequency, and dental visits), and (c) satisfaction of the restorations (aesthetics, function, fit, cleansability, and chewing ability of the crowns, and overall satisfaction). Frequency distributions were computed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The Student t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare means across variables. Correlation analysis was done to assess the association between continuous variables.
RESULTS: The age of crowns was 34.7 ± 9.7 months. The survival rate was 96.6% at 35.9 ± 9.2 months. There was a significant association between successful crown function and oral hygiene measures: tooth brushing (p˂ 0.001), dental visits (p = 0.006), and flossing (p = 0.009). A strong negative correlation was observed between aesthetic satisfaction (r = -0.717, p˂ 0.001) and chewing ability (r = -0.639, p˂ 0.001) with crown age. The linear regression model was significant for all predictors (p < 0.05) except overall satisfaction (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The LD crowns had long survival rates of 96.6% up to 35.9 ± 9.2 months and provided satisfactory clinical performance (low risk of failure). Oral hygiene habits such as brushing, flossing, and regular dental visits influenced patient satisfaction with LD crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The addressed focused question was "Is there a difference in the resistin levels between individuals with CP and those without CP?" four electronic databases: Medline, PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda), EMBASE, and Science direct databases from 1977 up to March 2016 for appropriate articles addressing the focused question. EMBASE and Medline were accessed using OVID interface which facilitated simultaneous search of text words, MeSH or Emtree. Unpublished studies (gray literature) were identified by searching the Open-GRAY database and references of the included studies (cross referencing) were performed to obtain new studies. In-vitro studies, animal studies, studies that reported levels of other cytokines but not resistin, letters to the editor and review papers were excluded.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included. Nine studies compared resistin levels between CP and periodontally healthy (H) individuals and reported higher mean serum and GCF levels of resistin in CP patients than the H controls. Two studies showed comparable resistin levels from GCF and serum between diabetes mellitus with CP (DMCP) and CP groups. Three studies included obese subjects and showed comparable serum and GCF resistin levels between obese subjects with CP (OBCP) and CP subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: CP patients were presented with elevated levels of GCF or serum resistin as compared with H individuals. Resistin modulates inflammation in chronic periodontal disease and may be used as surrogate measure to identify subjects at risk for periodontitis. Resistin levels in patients with CP and systemic inflammatory disorders such as diabetes, obesity, or rheumatoid arthritis was not significantly higher than the levels in patients with only CP.