Search

Purpose: The scarce standard therapeutic protocols for the management of peri-implant diseases results in the empirical application of therapeutic modalities. The objective of this study was to carry out a survey to analyze the therapeutic trends of professionals with different academic backgrounds and levels of expertise. Materials and Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional internet-based study survey of board-certified members of the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) was conducted. To assess the therapeutic trends, four clinical vignettes representing different scenarios of peri-implant biologic complications were provided to the participants. Differences in practice patterns were determined using chi-square test and Student t test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for qualitative variables. Results: A total of 268 members of the AAP and EFP completed the survey. A significant difference in preferred treatment plan was found between EFP and AAP periodontists, resective therapy being the treatment of choice by the majority of the former (41.2%) and regenerative therapy by the latter (48.9%; P < .001). Overall, 48.1% of experts did not consider any intervention for the management of mucositis. Antibiotic prescriptions differed among groups, with statistical significance in each clinical case, and the explantation criteria were inconsistent and differed significantly among groups. Conclusion: Substantial variations exist concerning the decision-making to manage peri-implant diseases and conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subgingival margins are often associated with adverse periodontal reactions, such as recession and gingival inflammation. The purpose of this cross-sectional dual-center study was to evaluate the periodontal health and stability of intrasulcular margins, comparing two prosthetic margin preparations: subgingival chamfer (SC) and subgingival feather-edge (SF) with gingival curettage. Ninetysix patients with 205 crowns (buccal margin 0.5 mm into the gingival sulcus) were included in the study. SF, gingival curettage, and intrasulcular restorative margin were prepared on 109 crowns; SC was prepared on 96. Restorations were in place for a mean of 55.9 months (range: 12 months to 10 years). No significant differences were found regarding probing depth between the two groups (mean buccal: 1.6 mm; mean interproximal: 2.3 mm). Significant increased recession was present around SCs, showing a higher margin-exposure frequency (buccal: 19.8% vs 3.7%; interproximal: 5.2% vs 1.4%). SC showed 8.5 times the risk of margin exposure compared to SF, men 5.5 times compared to women, and smokers 3.7 times compared to nonsmokers. Follow-up time was not a significant factor. SC sites showed a tendency for reduced buccal bleeding on probing compared to SF sites (3.0% vs 12.1%), but no significant difference was seen in a regression model. Plaque presence increased the risk of bleeding (4.1×), and women presented a higher risk of bleeding than men (3×). Subgingival margins can provide adequate periodontal health and stability if restorative procedures are well controlled and if patients are enrolled in an adequate maintenance program. SF with intrasulcular margin favors facial soft tissue stability, as reduced gingival recession was observed. The technique should be carefully applied to promote an adequate periodontal response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subgingival margins are often required for biologic, mechanical, or esthetic reasons. Several investigations have demonstrated that their use is associated with adverse periodontal reactions, such as inflammation or recession. The purpose of this prospective randomized clinical study was to determine if two different subgingival margin designs influence the periodontal parameters and patient perception. Deep chamfer and feather-edge preparations were compared on 58 patients with 6 months follow-up. Statistically significant differences were present for bleeding on probing, gingival recession, and patient satisfaction. Featheredge preparation was associated with increased bleeding on probing and deep chamfer with increased recession; improved patient comfort was registered with chamfer margin design. Subgingival margins are technique sensitive, especially when feather-edge design is selected. This margin design may facilitate soft tissue stability but can expose the patient to an increased risk of gingival inflammation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need of an adequate band of keratinized tissue (KT) to maintain periodontal health around teeth as well as around implants has been a debated topic over many years but still no conclusions have been drawn. Objectives: This prospective case series evaluates the changes undergone by the keratinized mucosa (KM) and the soft tissue volume around non‐submerged implants before the prosthetic rehabilitation. Material and Methods: A total of 40 patients were included. The primary outcome was to analyze the width of the KM at both buccal and lingual aspects compared to the pre‐existing KT in the edentulous ridge only in mandibular (pre)molar area. The mucogingival line was marked with a surgical pen and an intra‐oral scanner was used to take the impression of the implant area the day of the surgery (T0, baseline) and before the crown placement (T1, 3 months). Buccal soft tissue volume was measured at 1, 3, and 5 mm apical to the healing abutment position and a comparison between T0 and T1 was performed. Student t‐test was used according to the distribution of the data (Shapiro–Wilk). Results: The mean KT width at baseline was 4.54 ± 1.31 mm at buccal side and 5.04 ± 1.88 mm at lingual side. After 3 months, the mean KM values were 3.15 ± 1.03 mm and 3.72 ± 1.56 mm at the buccal and lingual aspects, respectively. The differences, 30.6% of KM reduction buccally and 26.1% of reduction lingually, were statistically significant for both sides. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this investigation, it was observed that the KM width from the baseline to the 3 months follow up presented a significant dimensional change in both the buccal and lingual aspects, whereas buccal soft tissue volume showed an increase between baseline and follow up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited evidence regarding the effect of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) on root coverage in the mandibular anterior region. A sample of 15 Miller Class II and III recessions were treated in 15 patients using a SCTG with a tunnel technique. After a mean follow-up of 20.53 months, the mean percentage of root coverage was 83.25% for all treated recessions. Furthermore, a statistically significant increase of keratinized tissue was observed at the end of the evaluation period (2.66 mm; P = .001). The combination of tunnel technique and SCTG should be considered a treatment option to obtain root coverage in mandibular incisors with Class II and III recession defects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this prospective randomized clinical study was to evaluate, by means of an image analysis system, the efficacy of two different surgical procedures for the treatment of Miller Class I and II maxillary gingival recession. Patients treated for maxillary gingival recession were recruited and randomly divided into two groups: patients who received a coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft (CAF + CTG) or CAF alone. Outcome parameters included complete root coverage, recession reduction, and keratinized tissue amount. Twenty-five patients completed the 12-month follow-up period. Patients in the CAF + CTG group showed a better primary outcome— gingival recession at 12 months—than CAF patients (P = .0001). Gingival recession at 12 months had a median of 0.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.5 to 0.6) in the CAF + CTG group and a median of 1.0 (IQR 0.9 to 1.1) in the CAF group. CAF + CTG and CAF groups had similar complete root coverage at 6 and 12 months. Recession and keratinized tissue width significantly decreased over time (P < .0001), with no effect of treatment or of treatment over time. Buccal probing depth had similar values over time (P = .28) and in the two groups (P = .52). Buccal clinical attachment level had similar values in the two groups (P = .87); moreover, mesial and distal clinical attachment levels did not show any variation over time (P = .88 and P = .68, respectively). By means of a computerized image analysis system better outcomes in terms of recession reduction after 12 months of follow-up were measured for maxillary gingival recessions treated with CAF and CTG. Adjunctive application of a CTG under a CAF increased the probability of achieving complete root coverage in maxillary Miller Class I and II defects (61.5% versus 83.3%; P = .38). Both treatments were equally effective in providing a consistent reduction of the baseline recession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The primary goal was to compare the amount of keratinized tissue width (KTW) gain after free gingival graft (FGG) procedures around implants and teeth after 6 and 12 months of healing. Materials and Methods: Patients with mucogingival defects (<2 mm of KT) around teeth and implants underwent a gingival augmentation procedure by means of a FGG. Clinical measurements were performed with an individual stent to determine keratinized tissue width (KTW), length (KTL), graft shrinkage (GS) and gingival margin position (GMP) at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery. Results: Twenty‐nine patients (35 sites) participated in this prospective study. After surgery, KTW decreased and GS increased significantly in both treatment groups during the whole follow‐up period, but the biggest changes were observed at 6 weeks. When comparing both treatment groups, implant sites showed significantly more reduction in KTW and more GS. Thus, at 12 months, KTW and GS reduced 2.03 ± 2.1 mm and 36.74 ± 38.2% in the teeth group and 2.91 ± 12.03 mm and 61.8 ± 36.25% around implants, respectively. Conclusions: A significantly greater reduction in KTW and more GS might be expected at implant sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent evidence suggests a link between periodontitis (PD) and hypertension, but the nature of this association remains unclear. The overall aim of this review was to critically appraise the evidence linking these two common disorders. Systematic search was conducted for studies published up to December 2018. Prevalence of hypertension in patients with PD (moderate/severe groups) vs. those without PD (non-PD) was the primary outcome. Additional outcomes included adjusted mean difference in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure (BP) levels in PD vs. non-PD, assessment of biomarkers in PD and hypertension, and BP changes after periodontal therapy. From 81 studies selected, 40 were included in quantitative meta-analyses. Diagnoses of moderate-severe PD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10–1.35] and severe PD (OR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.09–2.05) were associated with hypertension. Prospective studies confirmed PD diagnosis increased likelihood of hypertension occurrence (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 0.85–3.35). Patients with PD exhibited higher mean SBP [weighted mean difference (WMD) of 4.49 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.88–6.11] and DBP (2.03 mmHg; 95% CI: 1.25–2.81) when compared with non-PD. Lastly, only 5 out of 12 interventional studies confirmed a reduction in BP following periodontal therapy, ranging from 3 to 12.5 mmHg of SBP and from 0 to 10 mmHg of DBP. PD is associated with increased odds of hypertension (SORT C) and higher SBP/DBP levels. The evidence suggesting that PD therapy could reduce BP is inconclusive. Although additional research is warranted on this association, these results suggest that oral health assessment and management of PD could not only improve oral/overall health and quality of life but also be of relevance in the management of patients with hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]