Evaluation of the periodontal healing of the second mandibular molar distal site following insertion of PRF in the third molar post extraction alveolus.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal healing of the distal sites of the mandibular second molars, comparing the extraction therapy of the third molar with and without PRF adjunct into the postextraction alveolus. The study sample was composed by 40 consecutive patients who underwent extraction of mandibular third molars. Patients were divided in two groups: the last 20 participants who have only been subjected to extraction (spontaneous healing group, SHG) and the first 20 patients who had PRF adjunct (PRF group, PG). Healing was evaluated by analyzing the variations in terms of PPD (Probing Pocket Depth), REC (Recession), CAL (Level of Clinical Attachment), BoP (Bleeding on Probing) and GI (Gingival Index) from Baseline to further follow-ups at 1 month and 3 months. The disto-vestibular (DV) and disto-lingual (DL) PPD values of the second mandibular molar were measured at Baseline and after three months in the two groups. Patients of the PG group showed lower PPD values at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively: DV: 3.6±1.09 - DL: 3.5±1.15 and DV: 2.5±0.83 - DL: 2.6±1.09, respectively. Patients belonging to the SHG also showed lower PPD values, reporting respectively the following DV values after 3 months: 2.7±0.86 - DL: 2.75±0. 85. However, there was no statistically significant difference comparing the results obtained in PG and SHG groups at 1 and 3 months (p>0.05). The insertion of PRF inside the post-extraction alveolus of the mandibular third molar leads to limited improvement in terms of periodontal healing, compared to extraction therapy only.

Study of cellular toxicity in vitro of two resins for orthodontic use.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to compare cellular toxicity in vitro of two resins for orthodontic use: an auto-polymerizable composite and a photo-polymerizable composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples were obtained by joining a couple of steel orthodontic brackets by using auto-polymerizing or photo-polymerizing resin. We used a halogen lamp, a mini LED lamp and a fast LED lamp used for orthodontics cure for 40 seconds. The 3T3 Swiss cellular line of fibroblasts was used. The samples obtained were used to determine the cellular toxicity in vitro using the Neutral Red Up-take (NRU) and the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-Yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. RESULTS: Toxicity of the extract appraised at a low level at MTT and NRU assays. There were statistically relevant differences between the toxicity induced by the auto-polymerizing material and the toxicity induced by the photo-polymerizing composite material, polymerized with the blue-light lamp (p < 0.001) and with the mini LED lamp (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: From the data collected in this study, we can conclude that both resins show a low level of cytotoxicity that, in the case of photochemical polymerizing resin, depends on the characteristics of the lamp.

Quality of Life of Patients with Mandibular Third Molars and Mild Pericoronitis. A Comparison between Two Different Treatments: Extraction or Periodontal Approach.

Background: The extraction of the mandibular third molar is one of the most frequent intervention in oral surgery. A common indication for wisdom tooth extraction is represented by pericoronitis, which can determine discomfort and pain in patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of patients' quality of life by comparing a surgical approach with a periodontal approach. METHODS: We evaluated 82 patients diagnosed with pericoronitis that occurred at the third molar site. In total, 41 of them received a periodontal treatment and 41 were treated by extraction. The quality of life (QoL) of the patients was assessed by using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) index. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in the study and were followed up for 6 months. Of the patients, 41 received a periodontal treatment and 41 underwent surgical extraction. At the baseline, the OHIP-14 scores of the surgical group were higher (19.71, SD 9.90) than the periodontal group (14.41, SD 8.71). At 1 week, there was a reduction in terms of OHIP-14 in both groups, but the periodontal group showed lower values (12.3, SD 8.11). Long-term follow-up showed a reduction of the OHIP-14 values, with a difference in favor of the surgical group (0.10, SD 0.45). However, there was a reduction in OHIP-14 scores in both groups. CONCLUSION: Although the periodontal treatment offered a rapid improvement in terms of quality of life during the first week after the treatment, after 1 month and 6 months, the extraction of the mandibular third molar extraction remained the best treatment, removing the occurrence of re-inflammation of the site.