Maintaining tooth-implant distance following root amputation of a compromised adjacent tooth: A clinical case report.

BACKGROUND: Edentulous sites with limited horizontal tooth-implant distance pose a challenge to clinicians. This case report describes root amputation of an adjacent compromised molar to maintain an optimal tooth-implant distance METHODS AND RESULTS: A 41-year-old female was referred for extraction and implant placement to replace her left, maxillary second premolar (#13), which had been diagnosed with a vertical root fracture. Extraction and ridge preservation of #13 was completed without complication. The 4-month postsurgical clinical examination revealed a narrow mesial-distal distance (5.69 mm) of the edentulous space (#13), which was influenced by the degree of divergence of the mesial buccal root of tooth #14. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis verified a periapical lesion on the mesial-buccal root of tooth #14. The amputation of the endodontically compromised mesial-buccal root of #14 was treatment planned to provide space and facilitate placement of a standard diameter implant without compromising the implant or adjacent teeth. Crestal bone levels were verified and maintained at the 1 year postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSION: The findings of the case report demonstrate how root amputation of a compromised molar is an alternative solution for managing spatial limitations in contemporary implant dentistry. More studies are required to assess the reliability and long-term success of this approach. KEY POINTS: Why is this case new information? There is insufficient evidence on the long-term efficacy of narrow-diameter implants. Clinical treatment guidelines are not sufficiently available. This paper presents an alternative approach to managing a specific scenario where mesial-distance distance is limited using root amputation of an adjacent compromised tooth. What are the keys to successful management of this case? Comprehensive diagnosis and stringent case selection Multidisciplinary treatment planning Evidence-based decision making What are the primary limitations to success in this case? Very specific clinical application; adjacent compromised tooth Long-term follow up is required.

A randomized, double-blind pilot study of analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of naproxen sodium and acetaminophen following dental implant placement surgery.

Introduction: Post-surgical pain following dental implant placement surgery is typically managed with non-opioid analgesics, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. However, the comparative analgesic efficacy of over-the-counter doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen in implant patients is unknown. Therefore, we compared the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of naproxen sodium and acetaminophen after surgical placement of one or two dental implants. Methods: Adult patients were treated with naproxen sodium (440 mg loading dose +220 mg q8h, n = 15) or acetaminophen (1,000 mg q6h-max daily dose 3,000 mg, n = 15) for 3 days after implant placement in a randomized, double-blind design. Pain was assessed on a 0-10 scale every 20 min for 6 h after study medication treatment. Tramadol (50 mg) was available as a rescue medication. Plasma and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were collected prior to the surgery and 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 24, and 72 h after surgery for quantification of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-1ß levels. Results: Pain scores were significantly lower in patients treated with naproxen sodium compared to those treated with acetaminophen. Inflammatory mediator levels in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid increased after surgery and returned to near baseline levels by 72 h. Plasma IL-6 levels were significantly lower 6 h after surgery in patients treated with naproxen sodium compared to acetaminophen. No differences in inflammatory mediator concentrations in gingival crevicular fluid were observed between the treatment groups. The number of implants placed and body mass index (BMI) influenced inflammatory mediator concentrations in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid, respectively. Discussion: Naproxen sodium was more effective than acetaminophen in reducing post-operative pain and systemic inflammation following surgical placement of one or two dental implants. Further studies are needed to determine whether these findings are applicable to more complex implant cases and how they affect clinical outcomes following implant placement. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04694300.

Patient aggression toward dentists.

BACKGROUND: Workplace violence toward health care professionals is both widespread and widely overlooked. Only 4 studies of aggression toward dentists have been published-none in the United States-with the prevalence of aggression ranging from 29% through 80%. The purpose of this study was to provide an initial estimate of rates of patient aggression in dental practices in the United States. METHODS: The authors surveyed 98 dentists recruited from the faculty and alumni network of a college of dentistry. Participants completed a confidential online survey assessing whether they had experienced any of 21 specific types of aggressive behaviors from their patients. RESULTS: Past-year aggression prevalence was 22.2%, 55.0%, and 44.4% for physical, verbal, and reputational aggression, respectively. Career prevalence was 45.5%, 74.0%, and 68.7% for physical, verbal, and reputational aggression, respectively. Rates did not differ by sex, race, ethnicity, specialty, age, years practicing, or average number of patients treated per day. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported levels of physical, verbal, and reputational aggression at rates comparable with those of other health care professionals in the United States and abroad. Additional research with larger representative samples of dentists in the United States is necessary to confirm these prevalence estimates. Future research should also investigate predictors and outcomes of patient aggression and prevention and intervention strategies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Substantial rates of patient aggression highlight the need to address this problem in dental practices. The authors discuss implications for the dental profession, including proactive steps that could be taken to reduce patient aggression in dental offices.

Patient aggression toward dental students.

Aggression from patients is one of the risks faced by healthcare workers during a typical work week. This risk begins during training. Although rates of patient aggression have been estimated for nursing students and medical residents, studies of aggression toward dental students have not been conducted. To begin to address this knowledge gap, we surveyed 160 D.D.S. student dentists in their third- or fourth years who were attending a large urban college of dentistry during the 2018-2019 academic year. Each class had approximately 375 students, leading to a response rate of 21%. Approximately 28% of students reported experiencing at least 1 instance of physical aggression, 86% reported experiencing at least 1 instance of verbal aggression, and 36% reported experiencing at least 1 instance of reputational aggression. There were no differences in rates of experienced aggression by age or gender, but Hispanic or Latinx students were more likely to experience physical and reputational aggression than non-Hispanic White or Asian students. We discuss implications for dental education, including modifications to training clinic procedures and curriculum additions or modifications that may help prepare students to prevent and address patient aggression within the dental clinic environment.