Outcomes of root resection therapy up to 16.8Â years: A retrospective study in an academic setting

BackgroundRoot resection has been considered a viable treatment option for molars with furcation defects. However, need of a multidisciplinary approach could potentially deem this procedure less successful. The aim of the present article was to determine survival rates of root resection procedure and reasons for failure in an academic setting.MethodsPatient- related demographic data, medical history information, and relevant data pertaining to the root- resected teeth performed from January 1990 to September 2017 were reviewed through electronic and paper chart. Survival rates were analyzed using Kaplan- Meier estimate. Association between the reasons for failure and independent variables was established by a Pearson Chi- squared and Kruskal- Wallis test.ResultsA total of 85 patients with an average follow- up of 5 ± 4.3 years (range: 1 to 16.8 years) were included in the present article. A total of 47 molar teeth treated with root resection remained as part of the dentition (55.3%) and 38 (44.7%) failed. The mean survival time with the Kaplan- Mayer analysis was 109.9 months (9.1 years). Fracture (39.5%), caries (26.3%), and periodontal disease (23.7%) were the most common causes for failure. Interestingly, the majority of failures occurred in the first 4 years after therapy (n = 31; 81.5% of all failures).ConclusionsRoot resection therapy remains a treatment solution for molars with furcation defects. In an academic setting, >50% of teeth remained functional after 9 years of root resection therapy.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154884/1/jper10422.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154884/2/jper10422_am.pd

Influence of keratinized mucosa on the surgical therapeutical outcomes of peri-implantitis

AimTo assess the impact of keratinized mucosa (KM) width around dental implants on surgical therapeutic outcomes when treating peri- implantitis.Material and MethodsSurgically treated peri- implantitis implants were divided into two groups (KM width  .01). Between T1 and T2, no major differences were noted on PPD reduction, BOP and MBL changes between the two groups. GEE modelling demonstrated that MBL severity prior to surgical therapy was a better predictor for implant survival than KM width.ConclusionSurgical outcome in treating peri- implantitis was influenced by the severity of bone loss present at the time of treatment and not by the presence of KM at the time of treatment.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154633/1/jcpe13250.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154633/2/jcpe13250_am.pd

Effect of periodontal dressing on nonâ surgical periodontal treatment outcomes: a systematic review

BackgroundPeriodontal dressing has been advocated and showed some positive outcomes for placing over the surgical site after periodontal surgery. However, little is known about its effect on nonâ surgical therapy.PurposeThe aim of this review was to assess the clinical effect of periodontal dressing when used after nonâ surgical therapy.Material and methodsTwo examiners performed an electronic search in several databases for relevant articles published in English up to November 2013. Selected studies were randomized human clinical trials (prospective or retrospective trials) with the clear aim of investigating the effect of periodontal dressing placement upon periodontal nonâ surgical mechanical therapy. Data were extracted from the included articles for analysis.ResultsThree randomized clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and thus were included in the data analysis. Statistical analysis could not be carried out due to the lack of clear data of the included studies. However, descriptive analysis showed its effectiveness in improving clinical parameters such as gain of clinical attachment level and reduction of probing pocket depth.ConclusionPlacement of periodontal dressing right after nonâ surgical mechanical therapy can be beneficial in improving overall shortâ term clinical outcomes, although more controlled studies are still needed to validate this finding.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/122435/1/idh12130.pd

Influence of Crown/Implant Ratio on Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141451/1/jper1214.pd

Is there an effect of crown-to-implant ratio on implant treatment outcomes? A systematic review

Objectives: High crown-to-implant ratios may lead to complications due to unfavorable occlusal forces, including nonaxial forces, on the bone surrounding the neck of the implant and within the connection of the crown and implant itself. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on the influence of crown-to-implant ratio of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implants on biological and technical complications. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE (1950-January 2018), EMBASE (1966-January 2018), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database (1800-January 2018) were searched to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were as follows: crown-to-implant ratio of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implant-supported restorations in the posterior maxilla or mandible and follow-up of at least 1 year. Main outcome measures were as follows: implant survival rate, marginal bone level changes, biological complications, and technical complications. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. A meta-analysis was carried out for implant survival rate and peri-implant bone changes. Results: Of 154 primarily selected articles, eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Study groups presented a mean crown-to-implant ratio varying from 0.86 (with 10-mm implants) to 2.14 (with 6-mm implants). The meta-analysis showed an implant survival of more than 99% per year and mean peri-implant bone changes of Conclusion: Data reviewed in the current manuscript on crown-to-implant ratio, ranging from 0.86 to 2.14, of single-tooth, nonsplinted, implants did not demonstrate a high occurrence of biological or technical complications