Intra- and Inter-Examiner Repeatability of Diagnostic Peri-implant Clinical Measurement: A Pilot Study

Stability of peri-implantitis surgical reconstructive therapy-a (> 2 years) follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This follow-up study aimed to report the 24- and 30-month outcomes of a cohort previously enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on surgical reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with surgical reconstructive therapy with or without the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser. Within-group and between-group comparisons were tested with mixed model with repeated measures.

RESULTS

Regarding peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) reduction (control vs. laser test group) between 6 months (- 1.85 vs. - 2.65 mm) and 30 months (- 1.84 vs. - 3.04 mm), the laser group showed statistically significant changes but not the control group. In terms of radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) at 6 months (- 1.1 vs. - 1.46 mm) to 24 months (- 1.96 vs. - 2.82 mm), both groups showed statistical difference compared to baseline. The six explanted implants all were featured by severe peri-implantitis and mostly with no or limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm) at baseline and membrane exposure after surgery. Among the 15 retained cases, eight cases achieved more than 50% peri-implant bone level gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation and follow-up time frame of this trial, the outcome of the surgical reconstructive therapy sustained or improved in most of the cases. However, 25% of the implants with severe peri-implantitis failed 2 years after the surgical reconstructive therapy. The use of Er:YAG laser favors PPD reduction in the longer term up to 30 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Longer-term follow-up on reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis revealed sustained or improved stability in certain cases, but the survival of implants with severe peri-implantitis has its limitation, especially when there is limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm or no KT).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03127228 and HUM00160290.

Reliability assessment of the 2018 classification case definitions of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy in the assignment of the case definitions of peri-implant health and diseases according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions.

METHODS

Ten undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis.

RESULTS

The Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.

Gingival recessions caused by Herpes Simplex Virus in a patient with COVID-19 infection

Herpes Simplex Virus type 1 (HSV-1) is a very common infection often localized in the mucocutaneous junction of the lip. Rarely, it could be detected also in periodontal tissues, associated with an elevated risk of periodontal disease progression and gingival recessions. Recently, HSV-1 and numerous co-infections have been reported in literature associated with the Coronavirus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. This report illustrates a case of HSV-1 in a patient with Covid-19 infection, showing the presence of ulcers and vesicles on the gingival margin of maxillary teeth associated with soreness and pain. The histology highlighted the presence of intraepithelial cell ballooning, confirming the diagnosis of HSV-1 infection.

Comparison of decontamination efficacy of two electrolyte cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices

OBJECTIVE

To compare the in vitro decontamination efficacy of two electrolytic cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) implants were incubated with 2 ml of human saliva and Tryptic Soy Broth solution under continuous shaking for 14 days. Implants were then randomly assigned to one untreated control group (n = 10) and 5 different decontamination modalities: air-abrasive powder (n = 10), diode laser (n = 10), plasma cleaning (n = 10), and two electrolytic test protocols using either potassium iodide (KI) (n = 10) or sodium formate (CHNaO₂) (n = 10) solution. Implants were stained for dead and alive bacteria in two standardized measurement areas, observed at fluorescent microscope, and analyzed for color intensity.

RESULTS

All disinfecting treatment modalities significantly reduced the stained area compared to the untreated control group for both measurement areas (p < 0.001). Among test interventions, electrolytic KI and CHNaO₂ treatments were equally effective, and each one significantly reduced the stained area compared to any other treatment modality (p < 0.001). Efficacy of electrolytic protocols was not affected by the angulation of examined surfaces [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): electrolytic cleaning-KI 0.03 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.10; electrolytic cleaning-CHNaO2 0.01 ± 0.01 vs. 0.06 ± 0.08; (p > 0.05)], while air abrasion [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 2.66 ± 0.83 vs. 42.12 ± 3.46 (p < 0.001)] and plasma cleaning [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 33.25 ± 3.01 vs. 39.16 ± 3.15 (p < 0.001)] were.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, electrolytic decontamination with KI and CHNaO₂ was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial stained surface of rough titanium implants than air-abrasive powder, diode laser, and plasma cleaning, regardless of the accessibility of the contaminated implant location.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Complete bacterial elimination (residual bacteria < 1%) was achieved only for the electrolytic cleaning approaches, irrespectively of the favorable or unfavorable access to implant surface.

Classification Based on Extraction Socket Buccal Bone Morphology and Related Treatment Decision Tree

Background: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) can successfully reduce volumetric ridge changes. However, there is still no consensus on what technique is the most advantageous for each specific clinical scenario. Hence, the aim of the present paper was to provide a treatment decision tree to guide the choice of predictable ARP procedures based on extraction socket buccal bone morphology and integrity. Material and Methods: Three socket types (ST) are proposed and discussed based on buccal bone morphology (intact, dehiscence or fenestration). Results: A decision tree for ARP was developed in order to merge ST classification with suitable treatment modalities. In the decision tree, the issue of when to allow unassisted healing or ARP was discussed. Described methods included bone grafting and collagen plug, and absorbable membrane or non-resorbable membrane, with or without flap elevation. Conclusion: A decision tree for ARP procedures was provided to guide clinicians towards the most conservative and predictable treatment approach based on remaining socket anatomical structures after extraction.

Clinical Evaluation of Pink Esthetic Score of Immediately Impressed Posterior Dental Implants

PURPOSE

While comparative outcome results for peri-implant crestal bone levels, mucosal margin position, and peri-implant indices have been reported, no studies are available that evaluate and compare the esthetic result of impressions performed immediately with that of impressions performed of healed implants. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) of posterior implants restored with an immediate impression workflow compared to implants restored with a delayed impression workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-eight eligible participants who had received a single implant crown either in the premolar or molar regions at least 4 months before the study, were identified by an electronic health record review and scheduled for a single-visit study appointment. Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Several local- and prosthesis-related factors were recorded and their association with the selected outcome was assessed. Two-sample t-test was used for comparisons between the groups.

RESULTS

PES ranged between 4 and 12 (mean: 8). No significant difference between immediate (8.36 ± 1.12) and delayed (7.76 ± 2.14) impression workflow groups were seen for the total PES (p = 0.25). In addition, individual comparisons between immediately and delayed impressed implants for mesial papilla (1.27 ± 0.47; 0.88 ± 0.78), distal papilla (0.73 ± 0.65; 0.76 ± 0.83), tissue margin (1.73 ± 0.47; 1.47 ± 0.51), tissue contour (1.27 ± 0.65; 0.82 ± 0.64), alveolar process (0.82 ± 0.60; 1.00 ± 0.87), color (1.27 ± 0.65; 1.29 ± 0.69), and texture (1.36 ± 0.50; 1.53 ± 0.62) did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that the Pink Esthetic Score is not significantly different between single posterior implants impressed with the immediate and delayed implant workflows. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.