Effect of different implant placement depths on crestal bone levels and soft tissue behavior: A 5â year randomized clinical trial

ObjectivesThis randomized clinical trial analyzed the longâ term (5â year) crestal bone changes and soft tissue dimensions surrounding implants with an internal tapered connection placed in the anterior mandibular region at different depths (equiâ and subcrestal).Materials and methodsEleven edentulous patients were randomly divided in a splitâ mouth design: 28 equicrestal implants (G1) and 27 subcrestal (1â 3 mm) implants (G2). Five implants were placed per patient. All implants were immediately loaded. Standardized intraoral radiographs were used to evaluate crestal bone (CB) changes. Patients were assessed immediately, 4, 8, and 60 months after implant placement. The correlation between vertical mucosal thickness (VMT) and soft tissue recession was analyzed. Subâ group analysis was also performed to evaluate the correlation between VMT and CB loss. Rankâ based ANOVA was used for comparison between groups (α = .05).ResultsFiftyâ five implants (G1 = 28 and G2 = 27) were assessed. Implant and prosthetic survival rate were 100%. Subcrestal positioning resulted in less CB loss (â 0.80 mm) when compared to equicrestal position (â 0.99 mm), although the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05). Significant CB loss was found within the G1 and G2 groups at two different measurement times (T4 and T60) (p  .05).ConclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference in CB changes between subcrestal and equicrestal implant positioning; however, subcrestal position resulted in higher bone levels. Neither mucosal recession nor vertical mucosa thickness was influenced by different implant placement depths.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154286/1/clr13569.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154286/2/clr13569_am.pd

Multicentre Withinperson Randomised Controlled Trial of 0.5 Mm Versus 1.5 Mm Subcrestal Placement of Dental Implants With Internal Conical Connection: Five-year Post-loading Results

PURPOSE. To assess whether there are any clinical benefits to placing single dental implants either 0.5 or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty partially edentulous patients at six centres requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated according to a split-mouth design to either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestal implant placement; implants in aesthetic areas were submerged for 3 months while those in non-aesthetic areas were not. Provisional acrylic crowns were fitted and replaced with definitive metal-ceramic crowns after 2 months. Patients were followed up to 5 years after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient prefe-rence, recorded by blinded assessors. RESULTS. Two patients dropped out. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate (out of 58 patients, four implants failed in the 0.5 mm group versus one in the 1.5 mm group; difference =-5.17%; 95% CI-10.87% to 0.53%; P = 0.250) or complications (out of 58 patients eight complications occurred in eight patients from the 0.5 mm group versus five complications in five patients from the 1.5 mm group (difference =-5.17%; 95% CI-14.01% to 3.67%; P = 0.453) between groups. At 5 years after loading, the mean pink aesthetic scores were 10.89 ± 2.30 and 10.79 ± 2.41 in the 0.5 and 1.5 mm groups, respecti-vely, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = 0.943). Patients from the 0.5 mm group lost on average 0.53 ± 1.43 mm peri-implant marginal bone, and those in the 1.5 mm group lost 0.31 ± 0.98 mm, a statistically significant difference (0.26 mm; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47; P = 0.016). Patients did not prefer any depth of implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. CONCLUSIONS. No clinically appreciable differences were noted when placing implants surrounded by at least 1 mm of bone 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally. Clinicians are therefore free to choose which strategy they prefer

Efluentes como medio de cultivo para obtener biomasa microalgal: una innovacion posible por la interacción universidad-empresa-estado

Los efluentes cloacales pueden ser utilizados como medio de cultivo de microorganismos fotosintéticos llamados microalgas. De la biomasa microalgal es factible extraer bioproductos de valor comercial, constituyendo una posible biorrefinería de residuos en sintonía con una economía circular, que precisa ser estudiada.El Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica, de la Facultad Regional Resistencia - Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, con experiencia en la temática, junto con la Empresa encargada del servicio de agua de la Provincia del Chaco, vieron la oportunidad de interactuar en un Proyecto para desarrollar una Planta Piloto de cultivo de microalgas en efluentes de la localidad de General San Martín, ubicada en el noreste de la misma provincia. De esta manera, profesionales del Centro y estudiantes avanzados de ingeniería química participaron en el diseño experimental, toma de muestras y cultivo en varias escalas de microalgas en un efluente real local. Luego de la toma de muestras y caracterización del efluente, se seleccionó la cepa de microalga que mejor se adapta al mismo y se cultivó para, luego de la separación de la biomasa, evaluar su composición bioquímica y potencial comercial.El Proyecto presentado fue avalado por el Municipio de la localidad de General San Martín y habiendo sido adjudicados fondos por el Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva, se constituye en un proyecto pionero en la región en comenzar a evaluar una forma novedosa para el tratamiento de efluentes y el primer paso para un futuro escalamiento con vistas a una biorrefinería de microalgas.Fil: Gualini, Fernando Gabriel. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Resistencia. Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica; ArgentinaFil: Caceres, D.. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Resistencia. Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica; ArgentinaFil: Cuello, Maria Carolina. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Resistencia. Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica; ArgentinaFil: Pila, Andrea Natalia. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Resistencia. Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Modelado e Innovación Tecnológica. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Naturales y Agrimensura. Instituto de Modelado e Innovación Tecnológica; ArgentinaFil: Chamorro, Ester Ramona. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Resistencia. Centro de Investigación en Química Orgánica Biológica; Argentina5° Congreso Argentino de Ingeniería; 11° Congreso Argentino de Enseñanza de la Ingeniería y 3° Congreso Latinoamericano de IngenieríaArgentinaConsejo Federal de Decanos de Ingeniería de la República ArgentinaUniversidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ingenierí

Public Built Cultural Heritage Management: The Public-Private Partnership (P3)

The topic of the paper relates to the role of conservation and valorization in the management process of built cultural heritage, more specifically in the case of publicly owned, complex properties. Although well-established opinions state that the conservation of cultural heritage as common goods basically pertains to the purview of the public sector, the par-ticipation of private resources and adoption of new business models may pose an opportunity for the public administration to intercept funds that have originally not been intended for heritage. Partnership is an organizational issue that implies some degree of cooperation be-tween different partners. The interest towards partnership schemes is the product of the multiple interactions they are capable of creating and the variety of opera-tional instruments employed to implement them. The importance lent to the rela-tionships established in public-private partnerships warrants that their theoretical models, their organization, and some considerations concerning normative as-pects undergo careful scrutiny. Since public-private partnership has already been adopted in the past and in diverse contexts, as for instance in infrastructure devel-opment, the paper does not focus on innovating this alternative way of funding, but rather on describing and analyzing this emerging phenomenon of transition between public and private organizations in the cultural heritage field, as it has not been widely adopted

Subcrestal placement of dental implants with an internal conical connection of 0.5 mm versus 1.5 mm: Three-year after loading results of a multicentre within-person randomised controlled trial

Purpose: To evaluate whether there are some clinical benefits by placing single dental implants either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally in healed bone crests. Materials and methods: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring two single implant-supported crowns had both sites randomly allocated either to 0.5-mm or 1.5-mm subcrestal implant placement according to a split-mouth design at six centres and submerged in aesthetic areas or non-submerged in non-aesthetic areas for 3 months. Provisional acrylic crowns were delivered and were replaced after 2 months by definitive metal-ceramic crowns. Patients were followed to 3 years after loading. Outcome measures were: crown and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink aesthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes and patient preference, recorded by blinded assessors. Results: One patient dropped out. One patient lost both implants for infection at impression taking. Seven complications affected seven patients of the 0.5-mm group and four complications affected four patients of the 1.5-mm subcrestal group. Three patients had complications at both implants. There were no statistically significant differences for complications between group (OR = 4; 95% CI: 0.45 to 35.79; P (McNemar test) = 0.375). At delivery of definitive crowns, 2 months after loading, the mean PES was 11.22 \ub1 1.91 and 11.12 \ub1 1.59 for the 0.5- and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 1 year after loading, the mean PES was 12.09 \ub1 1.66 and 12.10 \ub1 1.52 for the 0.5- and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. At 3 years after loading, the mean PES was 11.99 \ub1 1.94 and 12.19 \ub1 1.78 for the 0.5- and 1.5-mm groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 2 months (P = 0.626), at 1 year (P = 0.920) or at 3 years (P = 0.296). One year after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.21 \ub1 0.51 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.11 \ub1 0.36 mm, the difference being not statistically significant (difference = 0.10 mm; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.20; P = 0.078). Three years after loading, patients of the 0.5-mm group lost on average 0.34 \ub1 0.87 mm and those of the 1.5-mm group 0.19 \ub1 0.54 mm, the difference being statistically significant (difference = 0.15 mm; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.046). Patients did not prefer any depth of the implant placement over the other. There were no differences in outcomes between centres. Conclusions: No appreciable clinical differences were noticed when placing implants 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm subcrestally; therefore clinicians can do as they prefer