Search

Background: The aim is to assess the effect of periodontal therapy and scaling and root planing (SRP) on the metabolic control in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with chronic periodontitis based on the estimation of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Materials and Methods: A prospective, comparative, clinical study was performed on 50 patients suffering from Type 2 DM with moderate, generalized chronic periodontitis. Type 2 moderately controlled diabetic patients with HbA1c values within the range of 6%–8% were selected. The parameters recorded were gingival index, plaque index, sulcus bleeding index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and HbA1c. The recordings were done at baseline and 6 months after SRP procedures. Results: Reductions in all the clinical parameters were observed and were found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: SRP resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the clinical parameters and HbA1c. Hence, periodontal treatment should be included in the management of diabetic patients.

Background: The aim of this study is to clinically evaluate and compare the clinical success and the relative bone healing of the implants which are placed using a flapless procedure and compare it to those placed by the conventional flap technique. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted with ten patients that were randomly divided into two groups. Group A included patients with immediately placed implants after extraction with flap elevation. Group B included patients with immediately placed implants after extraction without any flap elevation. The clinical parameters recorded were Plaque index, Modified Gingival Index, Early Wound Healing Index, Buser's criteria, Distance between implant shoulder and the crestal bone (DIB), and Radiographic Examination in a standardized manner to evaluate changes for the DIB values. Results: There was an improvement in Plaque Score from baseline to 1 month and baseline to abutment placement (6 months), which was statistically significant, but the plaque score from 3 months to abutment placement (6 months) was statistically nonsignificant in both the group. There was an increase in modified gingival score from baseline to 3 months, baseline to abutment placement (6 months), and 3 months to abutment placement (6 months), which was statistically significant in both the groups. The DIB scores in Group A recorded at baseline to 6 months were 2.80 ± 0.57 and 1.90 ± 0.42, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.90 and P = 0.001 in comparison. Whereas, the DIB scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 3.20 ± 0.57 and 2.50 ± 0.50, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.70 and P = 0.001 in comparison. The DIC scores in Group A at baseline to 6 months were 1.60 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.60 and P = 0.003 in comparison, Whereas the DIC scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 1.40 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.40 and P = 0.005 in comparison. Conclusion: Implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with and without mucoperiosteal flap elevation can be successfully done with augmentation procedures. Short-term survival rates and clinical outcomes of both groups were similar and appeared to be predictable treatment modalities.

Our aim was to compare the use of a conventional rotary handpiece and a Piezosurgical unit for extraction of lower third molars. We studied 40 patients, who were allocated alternately to have the third molar removed with either the handpiece or the Piezosurgical unit. Pain, trismus, and oedema were evaluated at baseline and then postoperatively, together with paraesthesiae, on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 15. Damage to surrounding tissue was checked on the same day whereas dry socket was evaluated from postoperative day 3 onwards. More patients complained of pain in the conventional group, they also required more analgesics, and they developed trismus more often than in the Piezosurgery group. There was also significantly more postoperative swelling in the conventional group. Patients were also evaluated using the subjective Postoperative Symptom Severity (PoSSe) scale. Our results suggest that apart from some inherent limitations with the Piezotome, it is a valuable alternative for extraction of third molars.

In the last three decades, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been increasingly employed as a biomaterial for orthopedic and spinal implants. PEEK dental implants have shown equal promise and are currently being used and investigated in many parts of the world. While their osseointegration capacity has been established beyond doubt, it is not clear whether these implants are suitable for specific situations with low functional and high esthetic demands or as completely viable alternatives to titanium in all situations. We present a brief introduction to the PEEK implants, a representative system and kit and the advantages and disadvantages as compared to titanium implants. It is our observation that PEEK implants function well in anterior as well as posterior regions and when loaded immediately (one week after placement). Their use in the esthetic zone can be of significant advantage to the surgeon as well as patient. However, diminished radiopacity and limitation of available sizes may be causes for concern.