Insights into Predicting Tooth Extraction from Panoramic Dental Images: Artificial Intelligence vs. Dentists

OBJECTIVES

Tooth extraction is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures. The indication is based on the combination of clinical and radiological examination and individual patient parameters and should be made with great care. However, determining whether a tooth should be extracted is not always a straightforward decision. Moreover, visual and cognitive pitfalls in the analysis of radiographs may lead to incorrect decisions. Artificial intelligence (AI) could be used as a decision support tool to provide a score of tooth extractability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using 26,956 single teeth images from 1,184 panoramic radiographs (PANs), we trained a ResNet50 network to classify teeth as either extraction-worthy or preservable. For this purpose, teeth were cropped with different margins from PANs and annotated. The usefulness of the AI-based classification as well that of dentists was evaluated on a test dataset. In addition, the explainability of the best AI model was visualized via a class activation mapping using CAMERAS.

RESULTS

The ROC-AUC for the best AI model to discriminate teeth worthy of preservation was 0.901 with 2% margin on dental images. In contrast, the average ROC-AUC for dentists was only 0.797. With a 19.1% tooth extractions prevalence, the AI model's PR-AUC was 0.749, while the dentist evaluation only reached 0.589.

CONCLUSION

AI models outperform dentists/specialists in predicting tooth extraction based solely on X-ray images, while the AI performance improves with increasing contextual information.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

AI could help monitor at-risk teeth and reduce errors in indications for extractions.

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study

AIM

To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss.

Clinical, Histological, and Radiological Outcomes of Sinus Floor Elevation Using a New Approach before Extraction of Periodontally Hopeless Maxillary Molars: A Case Report with 3-year Follow-Up

Introduction. This report is the first to present a case with 3-year follow-up, in which sinus floor elevation was performed before extraction of periodontally hopeless teeth, in order to shorten the edentulous interval between extraction and loading of implants and improve the patient’s quality of life. Case Presentation. After a series of initial and supportive periodontal therapies, the lateral window was created at the apices of the hopeless teeth, followed by grafting of bone substitute and membrane material at the sinus floor. The tooth was preserved for 13 months prior to extraction followed by immediate implant placement. The patient is satisfied with the oral function partially retained during the treatment period. Predominance of new bone was detected by histologic analysis. The available bone height was augmented from 1–2 to 12–14 mm with little resorption (less than 2 mm of height) after 3 years of follow-up. The dental implant is in good condition without obvious signs of peri-implantitis or mobility after 3 years of loading. Discussion. The feasibility of modified sinus floor elevation (MSFE) could be seen in the current case. The potential benefit of MSFE may include shortening the edentulous interval, facilitating bone regeneration, and providing a chance for immediate implant placement. However, further clinical case evaluations and controlled studies are required to determine indications, effectiveness, and safety of such augmentation procedures.

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies with a minimum of 5-years follow-up, reporting on the management of periodontally compromised teeth with either extraction and subsequent implant placement or teeth preservation with conventional periodontal treatment and application of regenerative procedures. The outcomes of these two approaches, based on clinical and radiographic data and the incidence of tooth- and implant-loss, were also investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search for studies reporting on clinical and radiographic outcomes of periodontal treatment or replacement of periodontally compromised teeth with implants was conducted in 3 electronic databases, followed by a hand-search in 8 journals. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with prospective design were included.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 1080 papers. After the first two screenings, 24 publications were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The treatment protocols for the teeth preservation group contained nonsurgical and/or surgical periodontal treatment with or without regeneration procedures. The implant studies included extraction of periodontally involved teeth and implant placement with or without bone and soft tissue augmentation, followed by restoration with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Survival rates ranged between 81.8% and 100% in the tooth retention group, and between 94.8% and 100% in the implant group. In the extraction group, no complications were reported for 76.09% of the implants. Similarly, no complications were reported for 86.83% of the tooth retention group. The lack of standardized comparable studies prohibited conduction of a metaanalysis.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment approaches, treatment of periodontally compromised teeth, or tooth extraction followed by implant placement, present high survival rates. The application of bone regeneration techniques improves the long-term prognosis of periodontally involved teeth. Hence, treatment of periodontally involved teeth with subsequent application of a rigorous maintenance protocol can be a viable alternative for a number of years, before proceeding to extraction and replacement with dental implants. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in order to draw definite conclusions on the subject.

Compromised Teeth Preserve or Extract: A Review of the Literature

Multiple systems and associated factors have been described in the literature to assess the prognosis of teeth with periodontal disease. Nowadays there is a tendency among clinicians to consider implants as the best solution after tooth extraction, in cases of teeth with a questionable prognosis. However, the value of the natural tooth must be considered, as the proprioception of the periodontal ligament is preserved, and it adapts to stress during functional loads. We first review the literature focusing on analyzing the factors that should guide decision-making to maintain or extract a tooth with a compromised periodontium. Then, we propose a schematic diagram of prognostic indicators to reflect the main factors to consider and the survival rate that each one represents when preserving or extracting a tooth.

Efficacy of rehabilitation of stage IV periodontitis patients with full-arch fixed prostheses: Tooth-supported versus Implant-supported-A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of implant-supported in comparison to tooth-supported full-arch prostheses in patients with stage IV periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to March 2020 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort-like studies comparing/evaluating fixed full-arch rehabilitation on teeth or implants in patients with stage IV periodontitis. The primary outcome measure was loss of teeth/implants and restorations. Data extraction was performed to create evidence tables, and meta-analyses were carried out as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies (31 publications) were identified but none addressed the scientific question in a controlled and randomized design. The risk of bias throughout the included studies was judged to be high, and meta-analyses demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Mean-weighted observation periods in studies on tooth-supported restorations were significantly longer than in studies on implant-supported restorations. The predicted loss of teeth and tooth-supported full-arch restorations over 10 years was 1% and 5%, respectively. The 15-year estimates were 10% and 13%. Corresponding predictions for implants and implant-supported restorations for 10 years amounted to 4% and 6%, respectively. Technical complications were the most commonly reported and affected 8% of tooth-supported restorations (during 7.2 years) and 42% of implant-supported structures (during 2.6 years). Peri-implantitis- or peri-implantitis-like symptoms were observed at an estimated 9% of implants (after 3.1 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on observational studies on full-arch rehabilitation of stage IV periodontitis patients, 10-year estimates of tooth loss were lower than the corresponding estimates for implants. Estimated loss of tooth- and implant-supported restorations at 10 years was similar. Technical complications were more prevalent at implant-supported when compared to tooth-supported restorations.

Single-Tooth Rehabilitation Combining Root Displacement and Crown Lengthening Two-Year Follow-Up: A Case Report

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Combined techniques to expose circumferential tooth structure associated with subsequent restoration may represent a valid option in many situations. This case provides an example of the successful management of the anterior tooth rehabilitation combining root displacement and crown lengthening.

SUMMARY

Rehabilitation of an extensively compromised single anterior tooth represents an intriguing challenge for dentists, particularly when the rehabilitation involves esthetic, psychosocial, and functional requirements. The success in rehabilitating a patient with a conservative approach depends on a critical evaluation of the remaining structures, precise treatment plan, systematic treatment strategies, and patient compliance. In this case, the patient's chief complaint was the undesirable appearance of the maxillary right lateral, caused by the displacement of the post and crown. Clinical examination revealed a remaining tooth with coronal fracture, severe loss of tissue due to caries, and absence of ferrule effect. Radiographic examination revealed that the fracture margin was located subgingival. This case report describes a single-tooth rehabilitation involving a combination of root displacement via orthodontic extrusion and crown lengthening. The rehabilitation was followed by post-and-core restoration using a prefabricated glass fiber post associated with a disilicate lithium crown. The clinical decision making and combined effect of both treatment strategies are explained in this report. The treatment required three months, including recovery times after surgery and the placement of the provisional crown. The patient was esthetically and functionally satisfied with the restoration. Patient follow-up examination was performed 24 months after the treatment. This clinical report contributes to the clinical practice and exemplifies the possibility of rehabilitating the natural tooth using combined techniques, which may offer particular advantages regarding prognosis and invested efforts.

Histological, radiological, and clinical outcomes of sinus floor elevation using a lateral approach for pre-/post-extraction of the severely compromised maxillary molars: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The volume of residual alveolar bone is critical to the survival of dental implants. When the volume of alveolar bone in the posterior maxillary region is less than 4 mm, maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) with the lateral approach is an effective option. Traditionally, this standard approach is usually conducted at 4-6 months after tooth extraction (standard MSFE). However, defective dentition due to extraction can impair mastication during the period of bone remodeling, especially if the molars on both sides are severely compromised and must be extracted. MSFE before extraction (modified MSFE) can take full advantage of residual tooth strength. However, the effectiveness and practicability of the modified MSFE procedure remain unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of modified vs. standard MSFE, in order to provide references to periodontists.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study cohort included 25 adult patients (50 surgery sites) recruited from Peking University Hospital and School of Stomatology who met the inclusion criteria. The two sides of each patient will be randomly divided into two groups: a test group-modified MSFE or a control group-standard MSFE. The surgical duration and patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scale for discomfort) will be documented. Clinical indicators, including implant survival rates, mucosal conditions, and complications, will be recorded every 6 months during the 5-year follow-up period. The volume of the alveolar bone and marginal bone level will be assessed radiographically (cone-beam CT and periapical films) every 6 months. Histological analysis of biopsy samples retrieved from both sides will be performed to evaluate the biological features of the bone.

DISCUSSION

The current study will explore the implant survival rates, safety, reliability, effectiveness, and practicability of the modified MSFE procedure. Moreover, the extent of osteogenesis on the sinus floor will also be assessed. The results of this trial will provide strategies for the modified MSFE procedure to achieve ideal clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ChiCTR1900020648 . Registered on 1 January 2019.

Single Tooth Prosthetic Restoration Through Surgical Crown Lengthening, Conservative Therapies and CAD-CAM Milled Restoration in Lithium-Disilicate. A Case Report

Objective

The restorative treatment of a decayed, non-vital upper premolar often requires an interdisciplinary approach. Esthetics and the entity of the masticatory loads are usually affecting the choice of procedures and materials. A conservative treatment in a case with esthetic needs and functional requirements is investigated in this case report.

Materials and methods

A case of a 45- year- old woman with a severely decayed upper premolar is presented. The tooth has been previously treated in an emergency department with a provisional endodontic medication, but a further treatment has been then performed. The tooth was painful at the moment of the visit and the carious lesion appeared to invade the subgingival level. A surgical-conservative approach has been selected involving crown lengthening, endodontic treatment and a prosthetic crown with a monolithic Lithium-Silicate.

Results

The rehabilitative process required 3 months, including maturation times after surgery and the placement of the provisional crown. The patient claimed to be both esthetically and functionally satisfied with the restoration.

Conclusion

A conservative treatment of a severely involved tooth requires a critical evaluation of the remaining structures and a precise selection of the restorative materials. A monolithic crown could represent an ideal solution for restoring an upper premolar requiring esthetics and solid function, but the choice of a high translucent, easily polishable and possibly even chair-side prosthetic material might be an appreciable added value for clinicians.

Long-Term Outcomes of Tooth-Implant-Supported Rehabilitation of Periodontally Compromised and Treated Patients Refusing Bone Grafting Surgical Therapies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term incidence of complications in abutment teeth and dental implants in periodontally treated and maintained patients, refusing bone grafting surgical therapies, rehabilitated with full-arch telescopic-retained retrievable prostheses (TRPs) and full-arch fixed prosthesis (FPs), both supported by teeth-implants combination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After active periodontal therapy, 18 patients were rehabilitated with full-arch TRPs, whereas 17 patients were rehabilitated with full-arch FPs. Patients were annually evaluated for technical and/or biological failures/complications.

RESULTS

During the 15-year observation period, 6 of 164 (3.6%) implants failed and 19 of 233 teeth were extracted (9.2%) in the TRPs group, whereas 6 of 152 (3.9%) implants failed and 23 of 221 (10.4%) abutment teeth were extracted in the FPs group. Differences in implant failures and abutment teeth loss between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. In both the groups, Cox regressions identified significant difference (P < 0.05) for mean initial bone loss, aggressive periodontitis, and smoking, as factors contributing to tooth loss and implant failures in general.

CONCLUSION

In periodontally treated patients, refusing bone grafting surgical therapies, rehabilitated with full-arch TRPs and full-arch fixed prostheses, both supported by teeth-implants connection, high survival rates can be expected if regular supportive periodontal therapy had been performed.

Long-term survival of structurally compromised tooth preserved with crown lengthening procedure and restorative treatment: A pilot retrospective analysis

AIM

Since there is limited study to assist in an evidenced-based decision whether to extract or preserve a structurally compromised tooth, the aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the long-term survival rate of tooth preservation after crown lengthening procedure (CLP) and restorative treatments.

METHODS

Electronic and paper chart of patients received CLP in our graduate clinic from 1990 to 2015 were reviewed. Statistical analysis was done using Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier estimator.

RESULTS

A total of 766 coded charts were initially collected. Four hundred and fourteen cases were included in the final analysis. The Kaplan-Meier estimate shows a cumulative survival rate of 88.3% in 5 years, 78.4% in 10 years and 68.1% in 15 years. In terms of reasons for failure, restorative problem such as recurrent decays was the main issue (35.2%), followed by fracture (29.6%), endodontic complications (23.9%) and periodontal breakdown (11.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, structurally compromised teeth have a reasonable long-term survival rate close to 80% after 10 years in a teaching institute. Patients with high fracture or caries risk may pose a higher chance of failure. Objective information should be presented to the patient to arrive at an evidence-based decision.

Implant and root canal treatment: Survival rates and factors associated with treatment outcome

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the survival rates of implant and root canal treatment as well as to investigate the effect of patient and tooth related variables on the treatment outcome in a large-scale population-based study.

METHODS

Dental records of patients who received root canal treatment and implant therapy were retrieved from the electronic records of the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Demographic characteristics, dental insurance status, socioeconomic status as well as medical history and tobacco use were recorded. The treatment outcome was included as a binary variable (survival/failure).

RESULTS

A total of 13,434 records of patients who had implant (33.6%) or root canal therapy (66.4%) were included. The survival rate analysis and Kaplan-Meier table revealed the majority of the implants were removed within the first year (58.8%), while only 35.2% of the root canal treatments failed in the same time period. The overall survival rate was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for implant therapy (98.3%) compared to root canal treatment (72.7%). A statistically significant association was found between treatment (p <n0.001), age (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.004) with treatment outcome CONCLUSIONS: Implant therapy exhibited significantly lower failures when compared to root canal treatment, but the selection of either treatment should be based on multiple factors. Higher age and anxiety were also significantly associated with root canal and implant treatment failure.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians are in an increased dilemma that affects the decision-making process due to the inadequate evidence in regards to the question of retention or extraction of a tooth in the natural dentition. This study demonstrated that both root canal and implant treatments are sound options with high survival rates; however, root canal therapy exhibited a significantly higher failure rate.

Premature exposure of dental implant cover screws. A retrospective evaluation of risk factors and influence on marginal peri-implant bone level changes

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors associated with the premature cover screw exposure (pCSE) at dental implants and to evaluate the influence of a pCSE on peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) change compared to non-exposed implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective data assessment from 165 patients (mean age = 54.0 ± 14.4 years) who received 395 submerged implants included demographic, health-related, and therapeutic variables which were analyzed for their respective impact. MBL change was detected at digital radiographs obtained from first- and second-stage surgeries.

RESULTS

pCSE were detected in 43 patients (26.1%) and 53 implants (13.4%). An increased frequency of exposure was significantly associated with (I) male gender (p = 0.012) at patient level and (II) the posterior region of the jaws (p = 0.005), implant systems with platform-matching cover screws, and a vertical distance of ≥0.5 mm between bone crest and the implant platform (both p < 0.001) at implant level. The decrease in mesial, distal, and total MBL differed significantly (mean total = 0.8 ± 0.7 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5; mean mesial = 0.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.3 ± 0.6; mean distal = 0.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.3 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001) between non-exposed and pCSE implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Male patients, implants with platform-matched cover screws, or when placed supracrestally or in posterior sites revealed significantly more pCSE, resulting in significantly decreased peri-implant MBL compared with non-exposed implants.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients with an enhanced risk of pCSE should follow frequent regular recalls during the healing period to enable for early diagnosis and intervention.

Treatment Options for Anterior Teeth with Questionable Prognosis: Critical Factors in Determining Whether to Maintain or Extract

Implants nowadays have conquered the majority of prosthetic restorations in the everyday clinical practice. As a result there has been a tendency among many clinicians to believe that implant therapy is the best solution in every clinical case, even if extraction of natural tooth with questionable prognosis is necessary. The value of natural teeth has been recently reconsidered. An implant not placed under ideal circumstances, may lead to a compromised result especially in the anterior maxillary region. Conversely natural teeth, even in a compromised clinical condition, maintain proprioception and can be adapted to the stresses of functional loading. The most demanding task in daily clinical practice is the treatment plan. The role of the clinician is more complicated for the anterior teeth where the patient's expectations and the esthetic criteria complicate the objective way of thinking. Therefore, a frequent dilemma in dental practice is whether to maintain an anterior tooth with a questionable prognosis or to extract it and replace it with an implant. The aim of this article is to approach the dilemma of extraction or maintenance of anterior teeth with a questionable prognosis through a series of clinical cases focusing on the factors that should be taken under consideration.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental implants offer increased possibilities in the restoration of the anterior maxillary teeth. In specific clinical cases however a satisfying clinical result can be achieved by maintaining the existing natural teeth even if they have a questionable prognosis and a more complicated treatment plan may be needed. (J Esthet Restor Dent, 2016).

Treatment of aggressive periodontitis

Despite etiological differences between aggressive and chronic periodontitis, the treatment concept for aggressive periodontitis is largely similar to that for chronic periodontitis. The goal of treatment is to create a clinical condition that is conducive to retaining as many teeth as possible for as long as possible. When a diagnosis has been made and risk factors have been identified, active treatment is commenced. The initial phase of active treatment consists of mechanical debridement, either alone or supplemented with antimicrobial drugs. Scaling and root planing has been shown to be effective in improving clinical indices, but does not always guarantee long-term stability. Antimicrobials can play a significant role in controlling aggressive periodontitis. Few studies have been published on this subject for localized aggressive periodontitis, but generalized aggressive periodontitis has been subject to more scrutiny. Studies have demonstrated that systemic antibiotics as an adjuvant to scaling and root planing are more effective in controlling disease compared with scaling and root planing alone or with supplemental application of local antibiotics or antiseptics. It has also become apparent that antibiotics ought to be administered with, or just after, mechanical debridement. Several studies have shown that regimens of amoxicillin combined with metronidazole or regimens of clindamycin are the most effective and are preferable to regimens containing doxycycline. Azithromycin has been shown to be a valid alternative to the regimen of amoxicillin plus metronidazole. A limited number of studies have been published on surgical treatment in patients with aggressive periodontitis, but the studies available show that the effect can be comparable with the effect on patients with chronic periodontitis, provided that proper oral hygiene is maintained, a strict maintenance program is followed and modifiable risk factors are controlled. Both access surgery and regenerative techniques have shown good results in patients with aggressive periodontitis. Once good periodontal health has been obtained, patients must be enrolled in a strict maintenance program that is directed toward controlling risk factors for disease recurrence and tooth loss. The most significant risk factors are noncompliance with regular maintenance care, smoking, high gingival bleeding index and poor plaque control. There is no evidence to suggest that daily use of antiseptic agents should be part of the supportive periodontal therapy for aggressive periodontitis.

Resolution of complex esthetic problems in abnormal anterior teeth: a clinical report

A conservative treatment is presented for a patient with complex severe esthetic problems related to the presence of anomalous teeth. The patient showed a rare occurrence of macrodontia of the maxillary right lateral incisor and microdontia of the maxillary left lateral incisor. The treatment plan was conservative to avoid tooth extraction, periodontal tissue trauma, and the risk of an unpredictable esthetic outcome. A multidisciplinary treatment involving orthodontic extrusion, endodontic therapy, periodontal therapy, and minimally invasive restorations was performed. A successful outcome was observed after a 2-year follow-up.

Comparison of long-term survival of implants and endodontically treated teeth

The outcomes of both dental implants and endodontically treated teeth have been extensively studied. However, there is still a great controversy over when to keep a natural tooth and when to extract it for a dental implant. This article reviews the benefits and disadvantages of both treatment options and discusses success vs. survival outcomes, as well as the impact of technical advances for modern endodontics and endodontic microsurgery on the long-term prognosis of tooth retention.

Long-term results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients: 10-year data around sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) implants in patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-nine partially edentulous patients were consecutively enrolled in private specialist practice and divided into three groups according to their periodontal condition: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and severely PCP. Implants were placed to support fixed prostheses, after successful completion of initial periodontal therapy. At the end of active periodontal treatment (APT), patients were asked to follow an individualized supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) program. Diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant biological complications were performed according to cumulative interceptive supportive therapy (CIST). At 10 years, clinical and radiographic measures were recorded by two calibrated operators, blind to the initial patient classification, on 123 patients, as 26 were lost to follow up. The number of sites treated according to therapy modalities C and D (antibiotics and/or surgery) during the 10 years was registered.

RESULTS

Six implants were removed for biological complications. The implant survival rate was 100% for PHP, 96.9% for moderate PCP and 97.1% for severe PCP. Antibiotic and/or surgical therapy was performed in 18.8% of cases in PHP, in 52.2% of cases in moderate PCP and in 66.7% cases in severe PCP, with a statistically significant differences between PHP and both PCP groups. At 10 years, the percentage of implants, with at least one site that presented a PD ≥ 6 mm, was, respectively, 0% for PHP, 9.4% for moderate PCP and 10.8% for severe PCP, with a statistically significant difference between PHP and both PCP groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that SLA implants, placed under a strict periodontal control, offer predictable long-term results. Nevertheless, patients with a history of periodontitis, who did not fully adhere to the SPT, presented a statistically significant higher number of sites that required additional surgical and/or antibiotic treatment. Therefore, patients should be informed, from the beginning, of the value of the SPT in enhancing long-term outcomes of implant therapy, particularly those affected by periodontitis.

Low-cost periodontal therapy

Periodontitis is a complex infectious disease that affects low-income individuals disproportionately. Periodontitis is associated with specific bacterial species and herpesviruses, and successful prevention and treatment of the disease is contingent upon effective control of these pathogens. This article presents an efficacious, highly safe, minimally invasive, practical and low-cost periodontal therapy that involves professional and patient-administered mechanical therapy and antimicrobial agents. The major components are scaling for calculus removal, periodontal pocket irrigation with potent antiseptics, and treatment with systemic antibiotics for advanced disease. Povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite have all the characteristics for becoming the first-choice antiseptics in the management of periodontal diseases. Both agents show excellent antibacterial and antiviral properties, are readily available throughout the world, have been safely used in periodontal therapy for decades, offer significant benefits for individuals with very limited financial resources, and are well accepted by most dental professionals and patients. Four per cent chlorhexidine applied with a toothbrush to the most posterior part to the tongue dorsum can markedly reduce or eliminate halitosis in most individuals. Systemic antibiotics are used to treat periodontopathic bacteria that are not readily reached by topical therapy, such as pathogens within gingival tissue, within furcation defects, at the base of periodontal pockets, and on the tongue, tonsils and buccal mucosae. Valuable antibiotic therapies are amoxicillin-metronidazole (250 mg of amoxicillin and 250 mg of metronidazole, three times daily for 8 days) for young and middle-aged patients, and ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (500 mg of each, twice daily for 8 days) for elderly patients and for patients in developing countries who frequently harbor enteric rods subgingivally. Scaling to remove dental calculus and the prudent use of inexpensive antimicrobial agents can significantly retard or arrest progressive periodontitis in the great majority of patients.

Hierarchical decisions on teeth vs. implants in the periodontitis-susceptible patient: the modern dilemma

It is estimated that advanced periodontitis typically affects about 10% of most adult populations studied. These individuals can be considered highly susceptible to periodontitis and often present difficulties for clinicians in therapeutic decision making, especially when dental implants are involved. Poor plaque control and smoking are well established risk factors for periodontitis, as well as for peri-implant disease. Long-term follow-up studies have clearly demonstrated that treatment of periodontal disease, even if advanced, can be successful in arresting disease progression and preventing (or at least significantly delaying) tooth loss. With the increasing development of implant dentistry, traditional well documented and evidence-based therapies to treat periodontal diseases may sometimes not be used to their full potential. Instead, there appears to be an increasing tendency to extract periodontally compromised teeth and replace them with implants, as if implants can solve the problem. However, peri-implant diseases are prevalent, affecting between 28% and 56% of people with implants, and (at the implant level) 12-43% of implants. A history of periodontal disease, smoking and poor oral hygiene are all risk factors for developing peri-implantitis. Unlike periodontitis, there are currently no predictable means for treating peri-implantitis, although resective surgery seems to be the most effective technique. Consequently, if implant treatment is considered in patients who are susceptible to periodontitis, it should be preceded by appropriate and adequate periodontal treatment or re-treatment to control the condition, and should be followed by a stringent supportive maintenance program to prevent the development of peri-implant disease. The decision whether implant treatment should be performed should be based on an assessment of the patient's risk profile at the subject level, as well as at the site level.

Natural Tooth Versus Implant: A Key to Treatment Planning

Since time immemorial, man has constantly contrived to replace natural body parts that are either congenitally absent or lost subsequent to disease or injury, so as to maintain a perfect amalgam of form and function. Dental implants have recently become established as a standard treatment protocol for replacing missing teeth. Ostensibly, a dilemma has arisen whether the implant should obviate the necessity to preserve teeth with debatable restorative prognosis. This article attempts to review the work done hitherto and to formulate a combined perspective in such cases.

Morphofunctional aspects of dental implants

Although oral implantology is among the most beneficial developments of modern dentistry, the widely spread opinion that the long-term outcome of implants is superior to that of natural teeth has been refuted. To evade uncritical extractions, the morphofunctional properties of natural teeth and implant-supported restorations are compared from a proprioceptive and occlusal trauma perspective. The periodontal ligament of natural teeth provides the central nerve system with feedback for sensory perception and motor control. Conversely, the lack of such proprioception causes lower tactile sensitivity and less coordinated masticatory muscle activity in implant-borne restorations and makes them more prone to occlusal overload and possible subsequent failure. Moreover, occlusal anomalies may be conducive to parafunctional activity, craniomandibular disorder, tinnitus, and headache. Oral implantology, therefore, has to take appropriate account of occlusal conditions and the biomechanical and neuromuscular aspects of masticatory function.

Retention of questionable and hopeless teeth in compliant patients treated for aggressive periodontitis

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the survival rates of questionable and hopeless teeth in patients with aggressive periodontitis (AgP) and chronic periodontitis (CP) during 15 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four AgP and 34 CP patients (SPT≥10 years) with bone loss of ≥50% at ≥2 teeth were consecutively recruited. Bone loss was measured on digitized radiographs and teeth were categorized as "questionable" (≥50 to <70% bone loss) or as "hopeless" (≥70%). Progression in pocket probing depths (PPD) during SPT, tooth loss and reasons for extraction were analysed.

RESULTS

In AgP patients, 262 teeth were considered as questionable and 63 as hopeless (CP: 149/51). During active periodontal therapy, 25 questionable and 26 hopeless teeth were extracted (CP: 12/16). During 15.3 ± 4.1 years of SPT of AgP 28 questionable and 15 hopeless teeth were removed (CP: 28/12). The mean tooth loss per patient during SPT in total was 0.14 (AgP) and 0.16 (CP) teeth/year. There were no significant differences in tooth loss or longitudinal progression of PPD between AgP and CP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AgP, 88.2% (209 of 237) of questionable and 59.5% (22 of 37) of hopeless teeth survived 15 years during regular SPT in a dental school department.