Digital Smile Makeover: A Multidisciplinary Team Approach.

Aesthetics is a fundamental part of contemporary dental practice. A pleasant smile depends on the gingival tissue architecture and dental characteristics. Excessive gingival display (gummy smile) is considered an unattractive smile and can affect a person's confidence. There are many etiological factors related to a gummy smile. Aesthetic rehabilitation of these cases often requires an interdisciplinary approach and close collaboration between dental specialties. This article describes an approach to excessive gingival display management caused by short teeth and hyperactive lips using a digital workflow for crown lengthening. A digital approach enables predictable planning and decreases the need for postsurgical modifications, thus shortening the treatment duration. Computer software is used for planning and 3D-printed guide for crown lengthening and implant placement. Two months later, lip repositioning was performed to reduce the hyperactive lip. After 4 months, prosthetic treatment and Botox injections were done to restore an aesthetic smile.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Based Assessment of the Alveolar Bone Anatomy of the Maxillary and Mandibular Molars: Implication for Immediate Implant Placement.

Purpose This study aims to examine specific aspects of socket morphology, including buccal and palatal/lingual bone width, interradicular bone (IRB) width, and assessments of root apices and furcation proximity to the vital structures of the maxillary and mandibular first and second molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods The study involved the analysis of 400 maxillary and mandibular first and second molars. Various measurements were taken to assess socket morphology, including mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) width, buccal and lingual bone thickness at 2 mm apical to the alveolar crest, IRB width at 2 mm from the furcation, and the distance between the root apices and furcation to vital structures, such as the floor of the maxillary sinus (FMS) and inferior alveolar nerve (IAN). Results The mesiobuccal (MB) root of the second molar commonly intruded into the sinus, followed by the palatal root of the maxillary first molar. The mean FMS-F distance was 7.17 + 3.98 mm, and it was 7.2 + 2.72 mm for maxillary first and second molars, respectively. The mean IRB width was 2.77 + 0.96 and 2.29 + 0.74 mm for the first and second molars. The mandibular second molar had the shortest distance to the IAN in comparison to the first molar. For maxillary teeth, 7% of the first and 4% of the second molars presented alveolar anatomy adequate for immediate implant placement, compared to 84% and 50% of mandibular first and second molars. Conclusion Understanding the local alveolar bone anatomy of molars and its relationship to vital structures is crucial for the effective planning of implant treatments.

Should the Quality of Glycemic Control Guide Dental Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetes? Focus on Implant Survival.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycemic control is crucial to dental implant long-term functional and esthetic success. Despite HbA1c levels of 7% or lower used is as an indicator for good glycemic control, however, this level may not be attainable for all diabetic patients. Most dentists do not consider patients with poor glycemic control candidates for implant therapy due to higher implant failure, infection or other complications. AIM: This review challenges the concept of one size fits all and aims to critically appraise the evidence for the success or failure rate of dental implants and peri-implant health outcomes in patients with less than optimal glycemic control. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests that estimating glycemic control from HbA1c measurement alone is misleading. Moreover, elevated preoperative HbA1c was not associated with increased mortality and morbidity after major surgical procedures. Literature for the survival or success of implants in diabetic patients is inconsistent due to a lack of standardized reporting of clinical data collection and outcomes. While a number of studies report that implant treatment in patients with well controlled diabetes has a similar success rate to healthy individuals, other studies suggest that the quality of glycemic control in diabetic patients does not make a difference in the implant failure rate or marginal bone loss. This discrepancy could indicate that risk factors other than hyperglycemia may contribute to the survival of implants in diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: In the era of personalized medicine, the clinician should utilize individualized information and analyze all risk factors to provide the patient with evidence-based treatment options.

Should Quality of Glycemic Control Guide Dental Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetes? Focus on: Peri-Implant Diseases.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Traditionally patients with metabolic conditions such as diabetes mellitus are considered not suitable candidates for dental implant therapy due to increased risk of infection, impaired bone healing or the potential for vascular complications. Peri-implantitis as the more progressive form of peri-implant disease involves bone loss and estimated to occur in nearly half of all implant cases long-term. Despite extensive research on association of hyperglycemia with dental implants in preclinical and animal models, translational effort to clinical practice is hampered by discrepancies in reported outcome indicators for peri-implantitis in patients with a spectrum of glycemic profiles. This review aims to evaluate clinical evidence for peri-implant disease in metabolically compromised patients and in particular in patients with poorly-controlled diabetes in order to inform clinical management of peri-implant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed utilizing PubMed database and using the key word 'diabetes' combined with "dental implant" or "Periimplantitis" or/and "Preimplant disease". RESULTS: Clinical studies with follow up more than 1year, systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluated peri-implant disease in diabetic patients in relation to glycemic control were taken into consideration in this review. CONCLUSION: Studies reported conflicting results regarding the long-term effect of diabetes on peri-implant health regardless of the level glycemic control. Therefore, interpretation of finding and relevance to clinical practise should be considered on individual bases.