Search

Purpose: This dental practice-based pilot study aimed to investigate the efficacy of diabetes mellitus (DM) screening based on questionnaire replies.Materials and Methods: 116 patients were screened in a private dental practice when visiting the dentist for a regular check-up. The Find-Risk (FR) questionnaire was used for diabetes screening. FR-positive (FR+) patients were referred to a diabetologist for further diagnostics (blood glucose, HbA1c); FR-negative patients (FR-) did not receive a diabetological examination. Furthermore, dental findings (DMFT) were obtained and periodontal condition was classified into no, mild, moderate or severe periodontitis, based upon periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment loss. Sensitivity and specificity of the FR questionnaire and a modified FR questionnaire (additional inquiry if severe periodontitis had been ever diagnosed) were determined in a statistical model.Results: 102 patients with a mean age of 56.31 years were included. Seven patients had known DM. A total of 36 patients were FR+, including the seven patients with known DM. Only 16 of the 29 participants (55%) followed the recommendation to see the diabetologist. Nine of these 16 patients showed conspicuous blood glucose findings. Both with and without modification of the FR questionnaire, a sensitivity of 100% was achieved. With the modified FR questionnaire, a higher specificity was shown in a statistical model compared to the FR questionnaire without modification (80% vs 69.5%).Conclusion: FR-based DM screening in dental practice is possible and could help to identify patients with (pre-) diabetes. However, these results must be validated in a large patient cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the clinical survival and success rates of conventionally luted three- and four-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with zirconia frameworks (Cercon Smart Ceramics, DeguDent) after a mean observation period of 119 ± 36 months.Materials and Methods: A total of 75 patients were treated in the Department of Prosthodontics at the University of Goettingen, Germany, and a total of 99 posterior FDPs were inserted and luted with zinc phosphate cement. Time-dependent survival and success rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and their relationships with the type of veneer (ceramic), location (maxilla vs mandible), and span length (three-unit vs four-unit) were analyzed with a Cox regression model (P < .05).Results: Of the 99 inserted FDPs, 24 were lost to follow-up, 51 remained functional and passed the 10-year examination (overall survival rate: 75.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.85), and 13 were absolute failures caused by technical events (technical survival rate: 84%; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85). In 50 FDPs, relative failure required a clinical intervention to maintain function (overall success rate: 40%; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.52). For 35 of these FDPs, the relative failure was caused by technical events (technical success rate: 61%; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.73). None of the evaluated factors showed an association with overall or technical survival or success.Conclusion: Zirconia-based posterior FDPs produced with a first-generation computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) system revealed high rates of absolute and relative failure, mainly due to technical events, after a mean observational period of 10 years. Further clinical studies with updated computer-assisted design (CAD)/CAM systems are needed to determine the long-term performance of zirconia-based FDPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Quintessenz der Zahntechnik is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Quintessenz der Zahntechnik is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim Materials and Methods Results Conclusions To assess whether guided bone regeneration (GBR) treatment of peri‐implantitis‐related bony defects could improve healing compared to open flap debridement (OFD) at 36 months.In a multi‐centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received OFD (control group [CG]) and 34 GBR treatment (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC) and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 36 months.Fifty individuals attended a supportive peri‐implant therapy program and completed the 36‐month follow‐up. GBR treatment resulted in an RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm following OFD (p = .18). No difference was found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC or PROs between the groups. Successful treatment (no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% in TG and 20% in CG (p = .053). Treatment results obtained at 12 months were generally maintained up to 36 months. No significant changes were noticed between 12 and 36 months.At 36 months, treatment results obtained at 1 year were sustained following both GBR and OFD in patients attending supportive peri‐implant therapy. GBR resulted in more RDF and higher composite treatment success rate than OFD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier [NCT02375750]). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of zirconia abutments for single-tooth restorations is well documented and supported by clinical studies with observational periods of up to 5 years. However, data for fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on all-ceramic abutments are lacking. Therefore, this indication cannot yet be generally recommended. Based on the available clinical studies, it can be assumed that the treatment results for anterior restorations can be improved by using all-ceramic abutments, especially in situations with a reduced thickness of the peri-implant soft tissues (< 2 mm). Zirconia abutments for single-tooth restorations can be restored with glass-ceramic crowns on a lithium-disilicate base or crowns with oxide-ceramic structures (alumina or zirconia). If the restorations are cemented adhesively, then all of the cement residues must be carefully removed. Superstructures based on zirconia ceramics can be removed to a certain degree if they are cemented temporarily or screw- fixed with directly veneered abutments. However, prior to providing a general recommendation for temporary cementation or screw-fixation of all-ceramic superstructures, additional clinical data are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to determine the survival rate and prevalence of biologic and technical complications associated with single-tooth implants with all-ceramic abutments in the anterior region. Method and Materials: A total of 33 patients were restored with 50 anterior implants and temporarily luted all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated zirconia abutments. All of the patients subsequently received annual supportive maintenance; 27 patients (18 women, 22–74 years) with 42 implants participated in the final maintenance visit and were included in the study (follow-up 78.1 ± 27.0 months). The time-dependent survival rate (Kaplan-Meier) and the frequency of prosthetic complications (abutment fracture [AF], screw loosening [SL], fracture of veneering ceramics [VF], retention loss [RL]) and biologic complications (peri-implantitis) were calculated to determine the success rates. Results: No implant loss (implant-related survival rate 100%) but one abutment fracture occurred throughout the entire observation period; therefore, the survival rate of the superstructures (in situ criterion) was 97.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.930– 1.000) after 7 years. Eleven restorations were affected by prosthetic complications: RL (n = 4), VF (n = 5), and SL (n = 2). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for two implants (probing depth > 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP]/suppuration, and bone loss > 3 mm) (implant-related peri-implantitis rate 4.8%). No restoration required replacement due to complications. The success rate (event-free restoration) was 75.9% (95% CI 0.636– 0.882) after 7 years. Conclusions: Considering the calculated survival rate, the application of all-ceramic zirconia implant abutments in the anterior region can be recommended as a reliable therapy in private practice. Fractures of veneering ceramics were the most common prosthetic complication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The aim was to investigate the extent to which it is possible to diagnose suspected carotid calcification from dental panoramic radiography (PR) and to establish an association to periodontal risk. Methods 824 PRs from one dental practice were investigated. Parameters considered were gender, age, bone loss - age index, tooth loss, periodontal risk and suspected carotid calcification (left, right, both sides). Periodontal risk was classified: low risk (under 4 missing teeth, bone loss - age index under 0.5), moderate risk (5 to 8 missing teeth and/or bone loss - age index 0.5 to 1.0) and high risk (more than 9 missing teeth and or bone loss - age index greater than 1.0). Results Of 824 patients, 349 were male (42.4%) and 475 female (57.6%); the mean age was 48.32 ± 16.52 years. In 9.0% (n = 74) of PRs, suspected carotid calcification was diagnosed (right: 5.5%, left: 2.3%, both sides: 1.2%). The mean tooth loss was 4.16 ± 5.39 teeth. In the case of 282 patients (34.2%), there was a low, in 335 patients (40.7%) a moderate, and in 207 patients (25.1%) a high periodontal risk. There was a significant correlation found between number of cases of suspected carotid calcification and periodontal risk, tooth loss and age (p = 0.0001). However, only age showed a significant association (OR: 4.9; CI: 2.4-9.8; p < 0.0001) in contrast to periodontal risk (OR 1.4; CI: 0.9-2.4). Conclusion PR can provides indication of carotid calcification as a secondary (chance) finding. In addition, periodontal risk may be correlated with positive findings of carotid calcification.

Abstract Background The periodontal screening index (PSI) is an element of the initial dental examination. The PSI provides information on the periodontal situation and allows a first estimation of the treatment required. The dental panoramic tomography (DPT) indicates the proximal bone loss, thus also allowing conclusions on the periodontal situation. In this study, the results of both methods in determining the periodontal situation are compared. Methods The clinical examination covered DMF-T, QHI, and PSI scores at four proximal sites per tooth; the examining dentist was unaware of the radiographic finding. Based on the PSI scores, the findings were diagnosed as follows: score 0 - 2 "no periodontitis", score 3 and 4 "periodontitis". Independent of the locality and time of the clinical evaluation, two dentists examined the DPTs of the subjects. The results were classified as follows: no bone loss = "no periodontitis", and bone loss = "periodontitis". Results 112 male subjects (age 18 to 58, Ø 37.7 ± 8 years) were examined. Regarding the PSI, 17 subjects were diagnosed "no periodontitis" and 95 subjects "periodontitis". According to the evaluation of the DPTs, 70 subjects were diagnosed "no periodontitis" and 42 "periodontitis". A comparison of both methods revealed that the diagnosis "no periodontitis" corresponded in 17 cases and "periodontitis" in 42 cases (53%). In 47% (53 cases) the results were not congruent. The difference between both methods was statistically significant (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.194). Conclusion The present study shows that the initial assessment of the periodontal situation significantly depends on the method of evaluation.