Search

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the learning in the implant dentistry hands-on course to that of the flipped classroom (FC) and the traditional lecture cohorts (control). Materials and methods In this study,80 students were enrolled for the first time in an implant dentistry program. Subsequently, they were divided into two groups. The first, the FC group, which had free access to a video with a PowerPoint presentation on the Chaoxing-WHU-MOOC platform about the implant placement on first molar sites before class. The second, the control group, which attended a didactic lecture describing implant practice on the first molar site via a bidirectional multimedia interactive teaching demonstration and then operated on a simulation model. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the deviation gauge were utilized to analyze the accuracy of the implant placement in the students’ models. An online satisfaction questionnaire was distributed to both groups one week after the class. Results The linear deviation of the CBCT examination did not show any statistical difference between the two groups concerning cervical, apex, and angular. A significant buccal deviation was observed in the control group compared with the FC group (mean: 0.7436 mm vs. 0.2875 mm, p = 0.0035), according to the restoration-level deviation gauge. A total of 74.36% of students in the FC group placed implant within 0.5 mm buccal-to-lingual deviations, but only 41.03% of students in the control group reached within 0.5 mm buccal-to-lingual deviation ranges. Additionally, 91.67% of the students in the FC group and 97.5% of the students in the control group were satisfied with the practical implant class. Conclusion FC was more effective than a didactic lecture for implant dentistry practical skill acquisition.

Purpose: To review experimental peri-implantitis studies using rat models and summarize different peri-implantitis induction techniques and evaluate their effectiveness. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches were conducted by two independent examiners to address the following issues. Meta-analyses explored the marginal bone loss (MBL) of four types of peri-implantitis induction methods in rats. The detailed induction tactics--such as the implant design, implant size, surgical process, time cost, induction methods, and endpoint measurements--were summarized. Results: Of the 18 included studies, 38.9% of the studies placed implants at the maxillary first molar, and 44.4% placed them at the alveolar ridge region anterior to the maxillary first molar. As for the induction method, the numbers of published studies on ligature methods, bacterial inoculation, and bacterial lipopolysaccharide inoculation were equally high among all selected studies. The total implant survival rate at the end was 160 out of 213 implants (75.11%). Eight studies with high pooled heterogeneity (I2 = 98, P < .01) in the meta-analysis reported an overall MBL (µ-CT) of 0.47 mm (95% CI = 0.14 to 0.81). A subgroup analysis estimated an MBL of 0.31 mm (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.50) for bacterial inoculation and 0.66 mm (95% CI = 0.07 to 1.26) for the ligature method. Histopathologic analysis revealed that peri-implantitis in rats was similar to peri-implantitis lesions in humans. Conclusions: Implant placement at the maxillary first molar with bacterial inoculation and the silk ligature method to build peri-implantitis rat models is reliable to use for research on peri-implantitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The aim of this case report is to evaluate minimally invasive stabilization using screws and cement for acetabular metastatic tumor and summarize the indications and contraindications for minimally invasive stabilization of acetabular metastatic tumors with screw and cement techniques. Case presentation Under imaging guidance, a patient with acetabular metastatic tumor was treated with hollow screw combined with bone cement fixation. Ischial screw, ascending branch screw, and anterior and posterior screws were inserted to firmly fix the anterior and posterior column of the acetabulum. At the same time, the third screw connected the anterior and posterior columns together, combined with bone cement into the fracture site to further increase local stability and resist bone defects caused by local tumor osteolysis. The patient was a 52-year-old Uygur male. Herein, we summarize his clinical symptoms and operation. Differences in visual analog scale and walking function (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society) before operation and at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation were compared. Results Postoperative complications and tumor progression were recorded. The patient was followed up for 16 months, and the operative time was 60 minutes. In total, 20 ml of bone cement was injected into the acetabular posterior column and the top of the acetabulum. VIsual analog scale score was 8 before operation, 3 at 2 months, 3 at 6 months, and 2 at 12 months after operation. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society function was 13 before operation, 23 at 2 months, 25 at 6 months, and 26 at 12 months after operation. During follow-up, no cement leakage, fever, hip nerve injury, pulmonary embolism, or imaging findings of further destruction of the acetabulum and surrounding bone were noted. Conclusion This case report shows that the treatment of acetabular metastatic cancer with minimally invasive stabilization using screws and cement under the C arm can effectively relieve pain and enhance the strength of the pelvis, and is innovative and feasible.