Comparative Assessment of Three Different Alveolar Ridge Dimension Measurement Methods before Implant Placement: An In Vivo Study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the three various techniques for measuring the alveolar ridge's dimensions prior to implant insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, a total of 36 participants were chosen. To prepare a surgical stent, a study model was created from an alginate impression. A first point (reference point) was marked on the crest of the ridge in relation to the adjacent teeth. Then, one point (point 1) and another point (point 2) were marked at distances of 3 and 6 mm, respectively, from the reference point. Based on the procedure for measuring the size of the alveolar ridge, the study was divided into the following groups. Group I: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurement method; Group II: Ridge mapping measurement method; Group III: Direct caliper measurements method. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the mean and standard deviation (SD). The Student's unpaired t-test was utilized for the statistical analysis. The 5% level of significance was used. RESULTS: There was no significant difference found between CBCT with ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements. However, on comparison of ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements technique, at point 1, the ridge mapping was 3.88 ± 0.12 and the direct caliper measurement was 3.62 ± 0.08. At point 2, the ridge mapping was 6.58 ± 0.06 and the direct caliper measurement was 6.32 ± 0.04. There was a statistically significant difference found between these two measurement methods. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation, the current study came to the conclusion that when CBCT and ridge mapping measurements were individually compared with the gold standard-the surgical open method, CBCT-demonstrated to be a highly specific and sensitive method for detecting the residual alveolar ridge width in the treatment planning of dental implants. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluation of alveolar bone is necessary during treatment planning for dental implant placement. Using simply panoramic and/or periapical radiographs to evaluate the bone may not be sufficient because it only provides two-dimensional information regarding the implant locations. Therefore, for better implant placement, three-dimensional information of the implant site, such as CBCT and ridge mapping technique, should be assessed.

Assessment of Implant Stability in Immediate Implant Placement using Different Bone Grafting materials: A Clinical Study.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the implant stability in immediate implant placement using different bone grafting materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (5 males, 7 females, range of 40-58 years) were included in the study. All patients were divided into two groups based on the graft material used. For Group 1, Xenograft bone grafting material was used, and for Group 2, Freeze-dried bone allograft was used. The patients were suggested to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine mouth wash for 1 min. Periotome was used for atraumatic tooth extraction, and necessary care was taken to avoid fracture of socket wall. The implant was placed with respective bone grafting materials. An Orthopantomogram (OPG) radiograph is taken at the day of the operation to serve as baseline data for the marginal bone level. Clinical and radiological parameters were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months to assess the mean marginal bone level changes. Periotest was used for the measurement of implant stability. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone level in Group 1 at baseline (13.58 ± 1.09), 3 months (12.64 ± 0.88), 6 months (12.02 ± 1.42), and 12 months (11.20 ± 1.26), respectively. In Group 2, the marginal bone level was at baseline (14.22 ± 0.26), 3 months (13.52 ± 1.28), 6 months (13.10 ± 0.32), and 12 months (12.12 ± 1.26), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference found in both the groups. Moreover, there was no statistically significant differences found between the groups at all the duration on intergroup comparison of the mean marginal bone level. The mean difference of implant stability in Group 1 the implant stability was 188.6 ± 22.5 and in Group 2 was 191.5 ± 18.2, and there was no statistically significant difference found between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both bone grafting materials used in the study showed improvement in implant stability and marginal bone levels after immediate placement of implant.

Assessment of Clinical Efficacy of Different Periodontal Dressing Materials on Wound Healing: A Comparative Study.

AIM: The present study aims to assess the efficacy of different periodontal dressing materials on wound healing clinically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients between the age group of 30-45 years, with chronic generalized periodontitis with loss of attachment of 3-6 mm, who require periodontal flap surgery, were screened to include in the study. Out of 45 subjects, 24 were males and 21 were females. The subjects were randomized into 3 groups as 15 in each. Group I: a collagen dressing, group II: light-cure dressing, and group III: non-eugenol-based dressing. The clinical parameters such as plaque index, vertical probing depth, pain, gingival index, and patient satisfaction were documented for all the three groups on the 7th and the 14th day. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to score the pain severity. The SPSS 20 software was used to analyze the data. The significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: The mean gingival index score reduced from 1.40 ± 0.14 to 1.10 ± 0.30 in group I, from 1.48 ± 0.01 to 1.26 ± 0.22 in group II, and from 1.58 ± 0.16 to 1.33 ± 0.10 in group III. The mean plaque index score reduced from 1.48 ± 0.56 to 1.18 ± 0.40 in group I, from 1.46 ± 0.01 to 1.24 ± 0.48 in group II, and from 1.42 ± 0.12 to 1.20 ± 0.20 in group III. There was a statistical difference found in all the three groups and between the groups from the plaque and gingival index scores. The probing depth comparison shows a significant difference in group I. Patient satisfaction was almost similar in all the groups. The pain index showed the reduction in the pain severity from the 7th day to the 14th day in all the subjects from all the three groups. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the periodontal wound covered with a collagen dressing material showed significant evidence to provide symptomatic relief and better healing to the patients compared to that of light-cure and non-eugenol periodontal dressing material.