Periodontal status among adolescents in Georgia. A pathfinder study

Objectives. The aim of the present pathfinder study was to screen and map the periodontal status of Georgian population in accordance with the guidelines of the World Health Organization for population based surveys. Methods. During 2012, a pathfinder study was conducted to collect this data. For the periodontal portion of the study, 15-year-old school children were examined in the capital city of Tbilisi as well as in two other large cities and 4 smaller villages. All participants were examined by a trained dental team in a classroom using a dental mirror and a periodontal probe. Periodontal examination included plaque scores, calculus scores, probing depth measurements and bleeding on probing. These measurements were recorded for the Ramfjord index teeth. Results. A total of 397 15-year-old participants were examined in this pathfinder study. There were 240 females (60.45%) and 157 males (39.55%). Of the total participants 196 (49.37%) were urban adolescents while 201 (50.63%) were from rural communities. Mean probing depth was 3.34 ± 0.57 mm with a range of 1 to 10 mm; a relatively high proportion (34.26%) of these subjects presented with at least one site with pockets of 5 mm or deeper. Males presented with greater plaque, calculus and probing depths than females. When urban and rural populations were compared, urban participants presented with more plaque, probing depths and bleeding on probing. Greater pocket depths were found to be related to the presence of plaque calculus and bleeding on probing. Conclusions. Overall, rather high incidences of periodontal pockets ≥ 5 mm were detected in this population. This data should serve to prepare further more detailed epidemiological studies that will serve to plan and implement prevent and treat strategies for periodontal diseases in Georgia and also help make manpower decisions

Clinical Trials Gone Missing—A Potential Source for Publication Bias in Dentistry

Background: The aim of this study was to examine publication bias associated with a failure to report research results of studies that were initially posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and to examine factors associated with this phenomenon. Methods: A search was conducted in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using six dental-related topics. Corresponding publications for trials completed between 2016 and 2019 were then searched using PUBMED, EMBASE and Google Scholar. For studies lacking matching publications, we emailed the primary investigator and received some additional data. For included studies, we recorded additional variables: industry funding, site setting (academic, private research facilities or private practice), design (single or multi-center), geographical location and commencement date vis a vis registration and publication dates. Results: A total of 744 entries were found, of which 7 duplicates were removed; an additional 67 entries just recently completed were removed. An additional 7 studies were in different fields and thus removed. Thus, 663 trials were included; of these, only 337 studies (50.8%) were published. The mean registration to publication interval was 29.01 ± 25.7 months, ranging from +142 to −34 months (post factum registration). Less than 1/3 of the studies were posted prior to commencement, of which much smaller proportions were published (37.3%). Studies that were posted after commencement (n = 462) had a much higher publication rate (56.7%), p < 0.001. Multi-center studies and those conducted in commercial facilities had much higher, though non-significant, publication rates (56.5% and 58.3%, respectively). Conclusions: With only half of the studies registered being published, a major source for publication bias is imminent

Exploratory Case‐Control Analysis of Psychosocial Factors and Adult Periodontitis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141163/1/jper1060.pd

Treatment Alternatives to Negotiate Peri-Implantitis

Peri-implant diseases are becoming a major health issue in dentistry. Despite the magnitude of this problem and the potential grave consequences, commonly acceptable treatment protocols are missing. Hence, the present paper reviews the literature treatment of peri-implantitis in order to explore their benefits and limitations. Treatment of peri-implantitis may include surgical and nonsurgical approaches, either individually or combined. Nonsurgical therapy is aimed at removing local irritants from the implants’ surface with or without surface decontamination and possibly some additional adjunctive therapies agents or devices. Systemic antibiotics may also be incorporated. Surgical therapy is aimed at removing any residual subgingival deposits and additionally reducing the peri-implant pockets depth. This can be done alone or in conjunction with either osseous respective approach or regenerative approach. Finally, if all fails, explantation might be the best alternative in order to arrest the destruction of the osseous structure around the implant, thus preserving whatever is left in this site for future reconstruction. The available literature is still lacking with large heterogeneity in the clinical response thus suggesting possible underlying predisposing conditions that are not all clear to us. Therefore, at present time treatment of peri-implantitis should be considered possible but not necessarily predictable

Guidelines for periodontal care and follow-up during orthodontic treatment in adolescents and young adults

Aggressive periodontitis is characterized by non-contributory medical history, rapid attachment loss and bone destruction and familial aggregation of cases. Aggressive periodontitis (both localized and generalized) is usually diagnosed in a young population. This is frequently the age that an orthodontic care is provided to this population. The aim of the present paper is to draw guidelines for periodontal evaluation and monitoring prior to and during active orthodontic treatment. Strict adherence to these guidelines as a routine protocol for periodontal examination prior, during and following orthodontic treatment may dramatically decrease the severity and improve the prognosis of patients with aggressive periodontitis in orthodontic clinics

Repeated delivery of chlorhexidine chips for the treatment of peri‐implantitis: A multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial

BackgroundPeri‐implantitis is a challenging condition to manage and is frequently treated using non‐surgical debridement. The local delivery of antimicrobial agents has demonstrated benefit in mild to moderate cases of peri‐implantitis. This study compared the safety and efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg chip (CHX chips) as an adjunctive treatment to subgingival debridement in patients afflicted with peri‐implantitis.MethodsA multicenter, randomized, single‐blind, two‐arm, parallel Phase‐3 study was conducted. Peri‐implantitis patients with implant pocket depths (IPD) of 5‐8 mm underwent subgingival implant surface debridement followed by repeated bi‐weekly supragingival plaque removal and chlorhexidine chips application (ChxC group) for 12 weeks, or similar therapy but without application of ChxC (control group). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Plaque and gingival indices were measured at every visit whereas IPD, recession, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 8, 12, 16, 24 week.ResultsA total of 290 patients were included: 146 in the ChxC group and 144 in the control. At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in IPD (P = 0.01) was measured in the ChxC group (1.76 ± 1.13 mm) compared with the control group (1.54 ± 1.13 mm). IPD reduction of ≥2 mm was found in 59% and 47.2% of the implants in the ChxC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Changes in gingival recession (0.29 ± 0.68 mm versus 0.15 ± 0.55 mm, P = 0.015) and relative attachment gain (1.47 ± 1.32 mm and 1.39 ± 1.27 mm, P = 0.0017) were significantly larger in the ChxC group. Patients in the ChxC group that were < 65 years exhibited significantly better responses (P < 0.02); likewise, non‐smokers had similarly better response (P < 0.02). Both protocols were well tolerated, and no severe treatment‐related adverse events were recorded throughout the study.ConclusionsPatients with peri‐implantitis that were treated with an intensive treatment protocol of bi‐weekly supragingival plaque removal and local application of chlorhexidine chips had greater mean IPD reduction and greater percentile of sites with IPD reduction of ≥2 mm as compared with bi‐weekly supra‐gingival plaque removal.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166183/1/jper10672.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166183/2/jper10672_am.pd