One-piece versus two-piece ceramic dental implants.

In this narrative review, a structured comparison between one-piece and two-piece zirconia dental implants is highlighted. Ceramic dental implants have long ceased to be hype; on the contrary, they can offer a significant addition to the daily dental implant practice. Not only do their favourable aesthetics play a significant role, but their ability to work completely metal-free is of added value, particularly for patients with a proven allergy for Grade 5 titanium. Furthermore, the fact that peri-implantitis seems to appear only incidentally is an important supporting argument for their use as well. Whereas the original design of zirconia implants was formerly always of a one-piece/one-phase structure (the monobloc design), nowadays, two-piece/two-phase designs (the so-called hybrid concept) are also widely utilised to restore missing teeth. Both concepts have advantages and disadvantages, scientifically as well as clinically.For this paper, relevant articles from the recent scientific literature were selected from PubMed. The aim was to identify and summarise what has previously been published on one-piece versus two-piece ceramic implants. This article will compare the benefits and drawbacks of one-piece versus two-piece ceramic implants based on clinical- (design, different sizes, surgical protocol, prosthetics), scientific- (loading and eventual complications) and patient-related (costs and long-time perspectives) criteria.

Diagnostic Value of Halitosis Examination Methods.

There are many methods and varied protocols for examining halitosis. Chemical and enzymatic tests determine the presence of bacterial species and their metabolic products or enzymes in the mouth, while halitometers precisely quantify gases but not halitosis itself. Examinations by the human nose (ie, self assessment, feedback from others, or organoleptic test by an examiner) directly target halitosis, however organoleptic examination alone is insufficient for a definitive diagnosis when the individual has no complaints about halitosis. The underlying reasons why patients seek consultation concerning halitosis are usually based on their own assessment and the opinion of others, even if those assessments are not correlated with oral odorous gas measurements. This article seeks to summarize findings and review methods of examining halitosis to determine their usefulness.

Halitosis: the multidisciplinary approach.

Halitosis, bad breath or oral malodour are all synonyms for the same pathology. Halitosis has a large social and economic impact. For the majority of patients suffering from bad breath, it causes embarrassment and affects their social communication and life. Moreover,halitosis can be indicative of underlying diseases. Only a limited number of scientific publications were presented in this field until 1995. Ever since, a large amount of research is published, often with lack of evidence. In general, intraoral conditions, like insufficient dental hygiene, periodontitis or tongue coating are considered to be the most important cause (85%) for halitosis. Therefore, dentists and periodontologists are the first-line professionals to be confronted with this problem. They should be well aware of the origin, the detection and especially of the treatment of this pathology. In addition, ear-nose-throat-associated (10%) or gastrointestinal/endocrinological (5%) disorders may contribute to the problem. In the case of halitophobia, psychiatrical or psychological problems may be present. Bad breath needs a multidisciplinary team approach: dentists, periodontologists, specialists in family medicine, ear-nose-throat surgeons, internal medicine and psychiatry need to be updated in this field, which still is surrounded by a large taboo.Multidisciplinary bad breath clinics offer the best environment to examine and treat this pathology that affects around 25% of the whole population. This article describes the origin, detection and treatment of halitosis, regarded from the different etiological origins.