Bibliometric analysis of Saudi dental journals from time of inception to 2023.

Objective: To describe the patterns of authorship, collaboration, study type, specialty, and funding status of articles published in Saudi dental journals. Methods: All articles published in Saudi dental journals in English from their inception to 31st December 2023 were identified. The following data were extracted using pre-pilot forms: publication date, number of articles, study type, authorship patterns, nature of collaboration, article specialty, and funding status. Descriptive statistics included the calculation of frequencies and percentages. Results: Five Saudi dental journals were identified, with a total of 2574 published articles. The journal with the highest number of studies published was the Saudi Dental Journal (33 %), followed by the Saudi Journal of Oral and Dental Research (25 %), Saudi Endodontic Journal (17 %), Journal of Orthodontic Science (14 %), and Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences (11 %). The first authors of most studies were academics (89 %) and from Asian countries (84.3 %). The average number of authors per publication was four (standard deviation = 2). Approximately 13.13 % of the articles were solo-authored. International collaboration was observed in 14.76 % of the identified studies. One-quarter (24.3 %) of the studies were cross-sectional, and just under half of the publications were in the fields of endodontics and orthodontics. Furthermore, 8 % of the studies were funded. Conclusion: The research output of Saudi dental journals was produced mainly by academics and involved national-level collaborations with a limited number of funded studies. Therefore, there is a need to encourage the publication of high-quality research and international research partnerships.

Evaluation of Periodontal Clinicoradiographic Status and Whol Salivary Prostaglandin E2 Levels among Users of Water Pipe and Cigarettes.

PURPOSE: The objective was to evaluate the periodontal clinicoradiographic status and whole salivary prostaglandin E2 (PgE2) levels among users of water pipe and cigarettes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic data, duration of smoking (pack years), and familial history of smoking were recorded using a questionnaire. Participants were allocated into three groups based on their smoking status: group 1: self-reported cigarette smokers (CS); group 2: self-reported water-pipe-users; and group 3: non-smokers. The assessment included measurements of full-mouth plaque and gingival indices (PI and GI), as well as probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Unstimulated whole saliva samples were collected and PgE2 levels were measured. Group comparisons were done and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Thirty-three, 34 and 33 individuals were included in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Full mouth PI (p<0.05), GI (p<0.05), PD (p<0.05) and mesial (p<0.05) and distal (p<0.05) MBL were statistically significantly higher among patients in groups 1 and 2 than group 3. The scores of CAL in groups 1 and 2 were 3.45 ± 0.97 and 3.62 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. None of the individuals in the control group displayed CAL. PgE2 levels were statistically significantly higher among patients in groups 1 (231.5 ± 66.3 pg/ml) (p<0.05) and 2 (231.5 ± 66.3 pg/ml) (p<0.05) compared with group 3 (76.6 ± 10.6 pg/ml). In groups 1 and 2, a statistically significant relationship was observed between pack-years, the duration of water-pipe smoking, and the levels of PgE2 and PD. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in periodontal clinicoradiographic status and whole salivary PgE2 levels between CS and waterpipe-users; however, these parameters are worse in CS and water-pipe users than in non-smokers.

Clinical and Radiographic Status and PISF Levels of PGE2 Around Cement and Screw Retained Implants.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the peri-implant clinicoradiographic status and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) levels in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) samples collected from individuals with cement-retained and crew-retained implants. METHODS: In this observational study, participants with cement-retained and screw-retained implants were enrolled. A questionnaire was utilized to gather demographic information and assess the educational background of the participants. Peri-implant modified plaque and bleeding indices, probing depth, and crestal bone loss were measured. Subsequently, PISF samples were collected, and corresponding volumes were recorded. Commercial kits employing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were employed to quantify PGE2 levels. The sample size was determined, and group comparisons were conducted using the Student t test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the correlation between PGE2 levels and clinicoradiographic and demographics. The predefined level of significance was established at P < .05. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants, consisting of 33 with cement-retained implants and 34 with screw-retained implants, were included in the study. The mean ages for individuals with cement and screw-retained implants were 54.2 ± 8.7 and 58.7 ± 7.4 years, respectively. The majority of participants had completed university-level education. Reportedly, 87.9% and 82.4% of individuals with cement and screw-retained implants, respectively brushed teeth twice daily. No significant differences were observed in clinicoradiographic parameters, PGE2 volume, and levels between cement-retained and screw-retained implants. There was no correlation between PGE2 levels and peri-implant clinicoradiographic parameters among individuals with either cement-retained or screw-retained implants. CONCLUSIONS: Cement-retained and screw-retained implants exhibit a consistent peri-implant clinicoradiographic status, accompanied by stable levels of PGE2 in PISF provided oral hygiene maintenance regimens are stringently followed.

Retention of Mandibular Complete Overdentures using Mini Dental Implants (Ø < 3 mm) and Standard Diameter Implants (Ø > 3mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The focused question was "Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB. CONCLUSION: Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.

An in vitro evaluation of 2 methods for retrieving fractured abutment screw fragments from the intaglio of 4 different implant systems.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: When an abutment screw fractures, there is no standardized technique for retrieving it from the intaglio of the dental implant. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the relative efficacy of a commercially available screw fragment retrieval kit with a range of standard dental instruments in regard to success and retrieval time. In addition, the effects of other variables on the success rate of screw fragment retrieval and the retrieval time required were also investigated. Finally, the integrity of the intaglio screw channel of the dental implant was also assessed following retrieval. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The abutment screws from 4 dental implant systems: Osseotite Certain, Ø4.1 mm (Zimmer Biomet); Osseotite External hexagonal connection micromini, Ø3.25 mm (Zimmer Biomet); Standard Plus Tissue Level, Ø4.8 mm (Institut Straumann AG); and Brånemark Mark III TiUnite, Ø4.1 mm (Nobel Biocare) had notches placed between the first and second coronal threads before being placed in their respective abutments, positioned in the dental implants (n=128), and tightened until the screws fractured. The dental implant specimens were placed in maxillary and mandibular casts at the lateral incisor and first molar sites on both sides. The casts were placed in mannequin heads on a dental chair and assigned to 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced operators who used 2 different retrieval kits to retrieve the screw fragments. Chisquared tests were used to determine the association between the success rate of screw fragment retrieval and the other factors recorded (α=.05), and a binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between the retrieval event and all of the independent variables. Regression models were developed to determine the factors effecting retrieval time. RESULTS: An overall success rate of 88.3% was achieved for screw fragment retrieval. No statistically significant difference (P=1) was found in the relative efficacy of the retrieval kits. Univariate analysis identified a statistically significant association (P<.01) in the success of abutment screw fragment retrieval between the Osseotite Certain and the Osseotite External hexagonal connection micromini implant systems. Gamma regression analysis identified significant differences between the time taken to retrieve the screw fragments and the type of dental implant (P<.001), (P<.01). The time taken to retrieve screw fragments in the maxillary arch was significantly longer than for the mandibular arch (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The commercially available screw fragment retrieval kit and the standard dental instruments were equally effective in retrieving the screw fragments. Less time was required to retrieve screw fragments in the mandibular arch than the maxillary arch. The level of experience of the operator had no effect on the ability to successfully retrieve fractured abutment screws.

Do adjunctive statins improve periodontal treatment outcomes in patients with chronic periodontitis?

Data sources Medline-PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases.Study selection Controlled clinical trials studies with at least one month follow-up that utilised locally or systemically delivered statins as a sole adjunctive treatment to mechanical periodontal therapy in patients diagnosed with chronic or aggressive periodontitis were included. Selection was carried out independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted to a spreadsheet with authors being contacted for missing data. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool with the ROBINS-I tool being used for non-randomised studies. Weighted mean differences between baseline and six months after periodontal treatment for clinical attachment level (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD) and intrabony defect (IBD) were calculated.Results Fifteen studies were incorporated in the systematic review, with ten investigations included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-regression, the additional use of simvastatin, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin decreased pocket depth in contrast with mechanical periodontal treatment and a placebo gel (p < 0.05). Simvastatin and rosuvastatin significantly reduced the development of intrabony defect in contrast with control group (p < 0.05). Statins failed to provide a statistically significant difference between the adjunct therapy for both periodontal pocket depth and intrabony defect (p < 0.05). Simvastatin provided a statistically significant improvement in clinical attachment level gain, as compared to the control group (2.02 ± 0.79 mm; p = 0.043). Conclusions Improvements in periodontal parameters were observed with the use of statins as adjunct to mechanical periodontal therapy. Simvastatin was the main medication that demonstrated additional advantages in all assessed parameters. The use of statins in relationship with non-surgical scaling and root planing provided better clinical periodontal outcomes.

Non-pharmacological pain relief during orthodontic treatment.

Data sourcesA comprehensive literature search in all languages was carried out. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (till 6 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 till October 6th, 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 till October 6th, 2016) and EThOS (till October 6th, 2016). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Authors were contacted to clarify study information.Study selectionThe inclusion criteria of studies were defined as patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, up to 18 years of age. INTERVENTIONS: orthodontic treatment, exposure: non-pharmacological orthodontic pain intervention (low-level laser therapy, vibratory stimulation, chewing adjuncts, brain wave music or cognitive behavioral therapy and post-treatment communication 'text message'). OUTCOME: pain.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors reviewed each study independently. A third author was used to resolve any disagreement on the eligibility of the included studies. The authors excluded papers that had unsuitable study design, and assessed the risk of bias on each paper they included. Data were combined using a random effect model and expressed results as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe authors included 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised 931 participants. Intervention modalities included: low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (four studies); vibratory devices (five reviews); chewing adjuncts (three studies); brainwave music or cognitive behavioral therapy (one study) and post-treatment communication in the form of a text message (one study). Twelve studies involved self-report assessment of pain on a continuous scale and two studies used questionnaires to assess the nature, intensity and location of pain. The combined data from two studies involving 118 participants provided low-quality evidence that LLLT reduced pain at 24 hours by 20.27 mm (95% CI -24.50 to -16.04, P < 0.001; I² = 0%). LLLT also appeared to reduce pain at six hours, three days and seven days. The results for the other comparisons are inconclusive due to low evidence quality.ConclusionsThe overall results of the current study are inconclusive. There is low quality evidence that non-pharmacological interventions reduce pain during orthodontic treatment.