Search

Objectives: This review was conducted to assess and compare whether there is a difference in response to adjunctive systemic and locally delivered antibiotics along with nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) in the treatment of peri-implantitis (PI) and chronic periodontitis (CP). Materials and Methods: A systematic search of literature on the predefined criteria was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, and microbial load reduction were selected as primary outcomes, whereas plaque index and gingival index were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Standard Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used for the quality assessment of the included studies, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted owing to the observed heterogeneity of the extracted data. Results: Adjunctive systemic and local antibiotics with NSPT resulted in additional beneficial effects in cases of both CP and PI, with greater improvement observed in cases of CP as compared to PI. Even for treatment of PI, among local antibiotics, minocycline was the only antibiotic with some significant adjunctive benefits, when used with NSPT as documented. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the review, it is concluded that the adjunctive use of antibiotics with NSPT offers a beneficial effect in the management of both CP and PI; however, there is insufficient direct evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the adjunctive antibiotic therapy along with NSPT for the treatment of PI and CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was planned to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement with two different types of surgical guides: Thermoplastic and three-dimensional (3D) printed. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 implants were placed in 20 healthy, partially dentate individuals with an isolated single missing tooth. The implant sites were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: Group A (thermoplastic implant surgical guide, n = 16 implants) and Group B (3D printed implant surgical guide, n = 16 implants). All the cases in both groups were digitally planned according to a defined protocol, and a comparison of the planned and actual implant positions was performed using the medical image analysis software. The differences in the outcome variables, i.e., angular deviation (AD), 3D error at the entry, 3D error at the apex (3D EA), vertical deviation (VD), and composite deviation, were statistically analyzed. Results: All the outcome variables showed improvements, but statistically significant improvement was shown by AD (P = 0.005), 3D EA (P = 0.01), and VD (P = 0.007). The mean and standard deviation (SD) for AD, (3D EA), and VD were 5.58° ±1.93°, 0.96 ± 0.32 mm, and 0.58 ± 0.36 mm, respectively, for group A. The mean and SD for AD, (3D EA), and VD were 3.94° ± 0.64°, 0.64 ± 0.35 mm, and 0.29 ± 0.13 mm, respectively, for group B (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of the study, dental implants placed using 3D-printed surgical guides were positioned clinically with greater accuracy, and fewer deviations were observed from their presurgical planned positions as compared to the thermoplastic surgical guides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective : Cleft lip and/or palate is the most commonly documented orofacial anomaly and may impact the status of health and disease of adjacent teeth along with their associated supporting structures. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the presence of clefts altered the periodontal status of patients. Design : The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020210178). A systematic search of literature was performed utilizing unique search strings for PubMed, Scopus, and GoogleScholar as databases including gray literature from April 28, 2020 to October 3, 2020. Setting : Cross-sectional and longitudinal human studies published in the English language, providing information about periodontal disease and its association with cleft lip, alveolus, and palate. Main Outcome Measures : Periodontal outcome measures such as gingival index (GI), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were utilized as the main outcome measures. Results : Patients with clefts were predisposed to poorer periodontal outcomes. Subgroup analysis revealed compromised periodontal measures for clefts as compared to control sites without cleft which were statistically significant in terms of GI [ Z = 2.44, P =.01], CAL [ Z = 2.52, P =.01], PI [ Z = 2.76, P =.006] and not statistically significant for PPD [ Z = 0.27, P =.79] and BOP [ Z = 1.47, P =.14]. Conclusion : Within the limitations of the review, the authors conclude that the presence of orofacial clefts may predispose to periodontal compromise when compared to normal controls. The GRADE rating was moderate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of mouthwash in India is underrated and lacks an expert consensus for optimum clinical use and benefits. Ten expert dentists and one expert otolaryngologist participated in a panel discussion where insights were sought to understand the role of mouthwash in maintaining oral hygiene and preventing/treating dental diseases and their complications. Current evidence regarding the effectiveness of octenidine-based mouthwash was also explored. Consensus was formulated on the basis of expert insights and contemporary supportive evidence. Antimicrobial mouthwash was recommended as an adjunct to brushing as it helps control plaque and reduce gingivitis, thereby maintaining oral hygiene in routine and preand post-dental procedures. The risk of alveolar osteitis and bacteremia following tooth extraction and the incidence or severity of oral mucositis in patients treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy may also be reduced with the use of mouthwash. Mouthwash use also reduces the risk of fungal infections, including denture stomatitis, and helps treat halitosis. Antimicrobials such as chlorhexidine, octenidine,cetylpyridinium chloride, probiotics or essential oils, and some antifungal and anti-inflammatory agents are recommended as active agents in mouthwash. The suggested duration of mouthwash use may be 2 weeks to 6 months depending upon the clinical condition. Octenidine-based mouthwash could be an effective alternative to other currently available mouthwash formulations. Appropriate use of mouthwash in addition to mechanical means of plaque control shall provide significant adjunctive benefits in specific clinical situations and for general oral health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]