Does the serum level of vitamin D affect marginal bone loss around dental implants?

Vitamin D is effective in bone healing. The aim of this study was to assess marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants in patients with sufficient and insufficient serum levels of vitamin D. This was a prospective cohort study with a pre-protocol population. Patients who underwent dental implantation in the first or second molar region and had a long-cone peri-apical digital radiograph taken at the time of loading and 12 months later were studied. Patients were assigned to one of three groups based on their serum vitamin D level: group 1, the serum level of vitamin D was deficient, group 2 insufficient, and group 3 sufficient. The marginal bone level change from immediately after loading to 12 months later was considered as MBL. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to compare MBL between the three groups. Ninety patients were included (30 in each group). The mean MBL was 1.38 ± 0.33 mm in group 1, 0.89 ± 0.16 mm in group 2, and 0.78 ± 0.12 mm in group 3. Analysis of the data demonstrated a significant difference in the mean MBL among the three groups (P < 0.001). There was a correlation between MBL and vitamin D serum levels (P < 0.001). It appears that a low serum level of vitamin D may be associated with increased MBL.

Does preservation of the socket decrease marginal bone loss in the mandible after extraction of first molars?

The quality of the bone plays an important part in marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants. The aim of this study was to compare MBL around implants the sockets of which had been preserved with the bone around healed sites in the mandible after extraction of first molars. It was a prospective, cohort study in which subjects were divided into three groups (n=30 in each): dental implants were placed six months after preservation of the socket in the first group, eight weeks after tooth extraction in the second, and six months after tooth extraction in the third. The changes between the marginal bone level after loading of the implant and 12, 24, and 36 months later were considered to be the MBL. Age and sex were the variables studied, the condition of the bone (healed socket or preservation) was a predictive factor, and MBL was the outcome. Analysis of variance was used to compare MBL and age among groups. There were no differences in the mean MBL among the three groups 12, 24, and 36 months after loading (p=0.55, p=0.22, p=0.38, respectively). Preservation of the socket did not seem to affect MBL of the first molar of the mandible.

Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on mandibular fracture healing: A randomized control trial, (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) method is utilized for the treatment of nonunion long bone fractures. Considering the established effect of the PEMF on the acceleration of the bone healing process, we conducted this study to evaluate the effect of PEMF on the healing process in mandibular bone fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This research was a randomized control trial (RCT) study. The sample consisted of patients with a mandibular fracture who were hospitalized in order to receive closed reduction treatment. The participants were randomly selected and then sequentially divided into two groups of 16 participants each (controls = 16, cases = 16). The patients in the control group received conventional therapy without any extra treatment, while the patients in the case group received PEMF therapy in addition to conventional therapy. For the PEMF therapy, patients in the case group received immediate post-surgery PEMF therapy for 6 h. Next, they received 3 h of exposure for the next 6 d, and finally, the same process was repeated for 1.5 h for post-surgery days 8-13. The maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) device was removed at post-surgery week 4. The patients in the control group, however, did not receive any extra treatment. The efficiency of the treatment modalities was evaluated clinically and radiographically. For the radiographical assessment, we employed a direct digital panoramic machine to calculate the computerized density of the bone, and those measurements were used for comparison of the results between the control group and the study patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean bone density values between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the percentage of changes in bone density of the two groups revealed that the case group had insignificant decreases at post-surgery day 14 and a significant increase at post-surgery day 28 compared with the control group (P < 0.05). After releasing the MMF, a bimanual mobility test of the fractured segments showed the stability of the segments in all patients. In the case group, the mouth opening was significantly more stable than that of the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PEMF therapy postoperatively leads to increased bone density, faster recovery, increased formation of new bone, a further opening of the mouth, and decreased pain.