Role of bisphosphonates in periodontal diseases: Systematic review

Introduction: The chief aim in managing periodontal diseases is the elimination of causative factors that may vary from pathogens to physical parameters. In the current systematic review, the effectiveness of “Bisphosphonate Therapy” as a supplement to “Scaling and Root Planing (SRP)” in the management of periodontitis is calibrated from the previous studies. Materials and Methods: An extensive online search in the various databanks of EMBASE, Medline, Pubmed, and Scopus was conducted. The keywords searched were “Probing depth (PD)” which was the main endpoint, and variations in “Clinical Attachment Level (CAL)” and/or “Bone Defect (BD) fill” were the secondary variants that were searched for in the current study. The data collected were tabulated and compared using the means and the standard deviations. Using the random effect method the mean variations and the confidence intervals (95%) of the parameters were assessed. Results: Eight studies were finalized. Alendronate was utilized as a supplement to SRP in seven studies, four of which employed topical administration and three of which used oral alendronate. A substantial grade of heterogeneity for Probing depth (P < 0.0001), Clinical Attachment Level (P = 0.007), and Bone Defect fill (P < 0.0001) was observed amongst groups when comparing the properties of adjunctive BT to SRP alone. In comparison to SRP alone, SRP with bisphosphonate treatment significantly reduced PD (P = 0.002), increased CAL (P = 0.008), and filled BD (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although BT as an adjunct appears to be successful in treating periodontitis, its practical applicability is questionable due to the possibility of developing jaw osteonecrosis and the short-range follow-up of the research

Assessment of the peri-implant conditions for the primary and the repeated abutment placements: An original research

Introduction: Recurrent abutment substitutions may physically irritate the mucosal (soft tissue) barrier, which may cause additional toxic irritants and germs to enter the mucosal implant barrier and weaken the tissues surrounding implant. The creation of a “definitive abutment” may lessen the likelihood of tissue losses around the implant. Determining the characters of the peri-implant tissue after the placement of the definitive abutments and multiple abutment replacement was the goal of this study. Materials and Procedures: Forty missing teeth were replaced with implants in matched subjects. Parameters assessed were “distance of cement enamel junction to alveolar crest and distance of CEJ to gingival margin; bleeding on probing, Sulcus probing depth, and peri-implant marginal bone loss.” Subjects were randomly assigned for the two groups of intervention. All the measurements were documented at designated timelines and compared for the statistical variance where P < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: In the control and test groups, the peri-implant marginal bone level rose from baseline to 3 months. There were no appreciable differences between the CEJ-AC and CEJ-GM groups when the clinical and radiographic parameters of each group were evaluated. Throughout all of the time points, the soft tissue borders in both groups remained comparably steady. Conclusion: The study's findings suggest that using implants with definite abutments is more advantageous for obtaining better maintenance in terms of the health of the tissues that surround the implants

Estimation of the mechanical properties of PRF in the implant surgery: An original research

Introduction: In many oral procedures that involve the implants, hair implantations, “Platelet-Rich Fibrin Membrane (PRF)” is commonly applied. The advantages are many. In this study, the mechanical resistance of PRF under resistance pull on a longitudinal axis was assessed and compared. Material and Methods: For the current in vitro study, 60 volunteers donated each 10 ml of their blood and hence a total volume of 600 ml of blood was procured that was analyzed for the current study. The total volume was grouped to three groups where they receive three resistance centrifugation forces of “F-200,600,800 m/s2.” In each group, 20 samples were tested for each level of the G-resistance. Each group was further divided as two subgroups of different times of wait, where they were centrifuged at baseline time and after a stand of 30 minutes. On universal testing equipment, the PRF membranes were mechanically tensioned in order to determine each membrane's resistance force. These values were compared for any statistical variance using appropriate statistical tools keeping P < 0.05. Results: Any applied force had no statistically significant effect on the centrifugation duration for membrane resistance. When the resistance was applied for the PRP samples immediately after they were procured, no significant variation was seen at all the grades of the centrifugation forces; consequently, the T30 group showed a statistically significant variance for the centrifugation forces applied (P = 0.04), with the highest value when the greatest force was applied. According to the results, the centrifugation waiting period could be determined based on the application requirement. Conclusion: For immediate membrane usage, the centrifugation had no effect on resistance; however, after 30 minutes, a membrane with greater resistance was produced by applying more force

Efficiency of prophylactic antibiotic coverage prior dental implant surgery: An original research

Purpose of the present study was to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is an effective and popular treatment aid in conjunction with oral implant placement in healthy patients. Observational cross-sectional study was conducted based on a web-survey reported according to the STROBE guidelines. A questionnaire was sent via email to each participant. It contained close-ended and some open-ended questions concerning demographics, antibiotic type, prescription duration and dosage which was analysed statistically using SPSS 25.0. Approximately 84% routinely prescribed prophylactic antibiotics in conjunction with oral implant surgery, 15.6% prescribed antibiotics in certain situations and only 1 did not prescribe antibiotics at all. Overall, 116 respondents prescribed both pre- and postoperative antibiotics, 29 prescribed antibiotics only preoperatively and 14 prescribed antibiotics exclusively after surgery. High range of prophylactic regimens is prescribed and they are not adhering to the new science-based specifications. Guidelines focused on the indications for prophylactic antibiotics among healthy patients are required to prevent bacterial resistance, side effects and costs caused by overtreatment and the irrational use of antibiotics