Search

Backgound: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient‐reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. Methods: Twenty‐six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring nonsurgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months. Results: A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6‐month follow‐up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at the 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ± 20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient‐reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been introduced to overcome limitations of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs). With little and inconsistent information in the literature regarding the effectiveness of using DAs, the aim of this systematic review is to examine marginal bone and soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, and implant failure rate associated with use of DAs and PAs.Methods: This systematic review was prepared according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and online trial registers were searched for studies comparing use of DAs and PAs. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess selected studies, and meta-analyses were performed using statistical software.Results: A total of 1,124 citations were identified. Of these, seven trials with 363 dental implants in 262 participants were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates for marginal bone level changes showed significant differences between the two prosthetic techniques in favor of using DAs. No significant differences were found in soft tissue level changes, technical and biologic complications, or implant failure rate.Conclusions: Within the limitations of this review, DAs appear to be a viable alternative to PAs at time of implant placement. However, favorable changes in peri-implant marginal bone level associated with use of DAs should be viewed with caution as its clinical significance is still uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]