Search

Objective: This pilot study aimed to evaluate, for the first time, the changes in facial tissues following the placement of a single dental implant. Method and materials: Patients were scanned with a 3D facial scanner (3dMD) before implant surgery, immediately after surgery (T1), at 7 days postoperatively (T2), and at the impression stage (T3). Acquired images were processed using the 3dMDvultus (3dMD) software program and volume differences and linear depth measurements were calculated to determine the morphometric changes over time. A total of 11 patients were included in the analyses. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the data. Results: The volumetric changes and maximum depth differences indicated an initial increase, followed by a progressive decrease in tissue volume after implant placement in the area of the surgery. The volume change values ranged between 2.5 and 3.9 cm³ for T1, whereas for T2, the volume change decreased to a range of 0.8 to 1.8 cm³. Maximum depth differences ranged between 2.06 and 2.80 mm in the soft tissues immediately after the implant surgery and reduced to around 2.01 to 0.55 mm at the impression stage. The amount of painkiller used was not related to the magnitude of linear depth measurements at any assessed time point. Conclusion: There was a longitudinal decrease in soft tissue volume and depth difference in extraoral soft tissues in the region of implant placement after surgery up to 6 weeks. The use of a facial scanner is a promising noninvasive method to monitor 3D morphometric changes after implant surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This prospective cohort study investigated the association between periodontal diseases (PDs) and all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality. Materials and Methods: We utilized adult participants recruited from six National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles (1999–2014) and linked mortality data from the National Death Index up to December 2019. Baseline clinical periodontal examinations were performed by trained and calibrated examiners. All‐cause and cause‐specific mortality was modelled through multivariable Cox proportional hazards and Fine–Gray models to account for competing risks. All models were adjusted for demographic and lifestyle variables, clinical measurements and comorbidities. Results: Overall, 15,030 participants were included, with a median length of follow‐up of 9 years. Risk of all‐cause mortality was 22% greater in people with PD than the control group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12–1.31). Risks of mortality by cardiovascular diseases (CVD), respiratory disease and diabetes were highest in participants with severe PD (CVD—sub‐distribution HR [SHR]: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.16–1.64; respiratory—SHR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.07–2.45; diabetes—SHR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.12–2.53). Conclusions: Severe PD is associated with all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality among US adults after multivariable adjustment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Methods Results Conclusion To update the competences and learning outcomes and their evaluation, educational methods and education quality assurance for the training of contemporary specialists in periodontology, including the impact of the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions (2018 Classification hereafter) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs).Evidence was gathered through scientific databases and by searching for European policies on higher education. In addition, two surveys were designed and sent to program directors and graduates.Program directors reported that curricula were periodically adapted to incorporate advances in diagnosis, classification, treatment guidelines and clinical techniques, including the 2018 Classification and the EFP CPGs. Graduates evaluated their overall training positively, although satisfaction was limited for training in mucogingival and surgical procedures related to dental implants. Traditional educational methods, such as didactic lectures, are still commonly employed, but they are now often associated with more interactive methods such as case‐based seminars and problem‐based and simulation‐based learning. The evaluation of competences/learning outcomes should employ multiple methods of assessment.An update of competences and learning outcomes of specialist training in periodontology is proposed, including knowledge and practical application of the 2018 Classification and CPGs. Harmonizing specialist training in periodontology is a critical issue at the European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To elucidate the molecular healing of intrabony defects following non‐surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) using gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). Background Data: Currently limited information is available regarding the GCF of intrabony defects and the change in biomarker levels in the GCF at early time points following treatment interventions. Methods: Twenty‐one patients (Periodontitis Stage III or IV) who have received NSPT, contributing one intrabony defect and one healthy site were included in this study. GCF sampling was performed at baseline, 1 day, 5 days and 3 months after NSPT. Multiplex bead immunoassays allowed the profiling of GCF for 27 markers, associated with inflammation and repair/regeneration. A mixed effects model with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was employed to compare the changes in the levels of GCF markers over time. Results: Following NSPT, changes were observed for several GCF markers, marked by significant increases 1 day post‐intervention, before returning to baseline levels by 3 months. Specifically, GCF concentrations of IL‐2, IL‐4, IL‐6, IL‐8, MMP‐1, MMP‐3, TIMP‐1 and FGFb significantly increased 1 day after NSPT. Signs of activation of cellular senescence were observed 1 day following treatment of intrabony defects, rapidly regressing by 5 days. Conclusion: Significant molecular changes are observed as early as 1 day following NSPT in intrabony defects, along with activation of cellular senescence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The key factors that are needed for bone regeneration to take place include cells (osteoprogenitor and immune‐inflammatory cells), a scaffold (blood clot) that facilitates the deposition of the bone matrix, signaling molecules, blood supply, and mechanical stability. However, even when these principles are met, the overall amount of regenerated bone, its stability over time and the incidence of complications may significantly vary. This manuscript provides a critical review on the main local and systemic factors that may have an impact on bone regeneration, trying to focus, whenever possible, on bone regeneration simultaneous to implant placement to treat bone dehiscence/fenestration defects or for bone contouring. In the future, it is likely that bone tissue engineering will change our approach to bone regeneration in implant dentistry by replacing the current biomaterials with osteoinductive scaffolds combined with cells and mechanical/soluble factors and by employing immunomodulatory materials that can both modulate the immune response and control other bone regeneration processes such as osteogenesis, osteoclastogenesis, or inflammation. However, there are currently important knowledge gaps on the biology of osseous formation and on the factors that can influence it that require further investigation. It is recommended that future studies should combine traditional clinical and radiographic assessments with non‐invasive imaging and with patient‐reported outcome measures. We also envisage that the integration of multi‐omics approaches will help uncover the mechanisms responsible for the variability in regenerative outcomes observed in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]