Impact of Implant and Site Characteristics on the Pattern of Bone Loss in Peri-implantitis.

PURPOSE: To assess the pattern of bone loss in peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients and relate patient and implant/site characteristics that may influence such patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, the records of partially edentulous patients with dental implants were stratified according to sex, age, smoking, and diabetes. Implants were stratified according to site, number of years in function, presence of adjacent implants, diameter, bone-grafted site, and implant platform. All these variables were obtained from previous periodontal charts and radiographs. The implants were then classified into two main groups: (1) bone loss as defined by the presence of progressive marginal bone change found on radiographs at least 12 months following prosthesis placement compared to a baseline with a threshold ≥ 2 threads of bone loss; and (2) no bone loss as defined by no detected bone change or bone level change with a threshold < 2 threads. The bone loss group was further divided into three subgroups according to pattern: vertical, horizontal, and combined. Descriptive analyses were applied to assess the frequency of the pattern of bone loss (horizontal, vertical, and combined). A statistical regression model was used to find if there was a significant correlation between patient/implant characteristics and the pattern of bone loss. RESULTS: A total of 304 charts with 540 implants met the inclusion criteria. One randomly selected implant per patient through Microsoft Excel software was included in this study. Of these, 157 (51.6%) of examined charts were men and 147 (48.4%) were women. The patients' mean age was 63.9 ± 11.4 years (range: 27 to 85 years) at implant placement, and implants had been in function for 12 to 120 months (median: 37 months). The percentage of implants that had bone loss was 24.7% (75 out of 304). The pattern of bone loss was 65%, 22%, and 13% for vertical, horizontal, and combined, respectively. Implants that had been placed in surgically bone-grafted sites had increased odds of vertical bone loss with either narrow or wide implants (OR = 2.5 [P = .04] and 3.1 [P = .01], respectively). The presence of adjacent implants had significantly (P = .003) increased odds of horizontal bone loss (OR = 5.1). CONCLUSION: Approximately one-quarter of dental implants (24.7%) developed bone loss beyond normal physiologic remodeling. Vertical bone loss around single implants was the most common pattern (65%), particularly around implants placed in bone-grafted sites with odds ratio of 2.5 for narrow implants vs 3.1 for wide implants. In the presence of adjacent implants, the odds of horizontal bone loss was 5.1 (P = .003).

Tuberosity versus palatal donor sites for soft tissue grafting: A split-mouth clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative pain associated with palatal and tuberosity donor sites for soft tissue grafting, and to evaluate the outcomes in both the donor and recipient sites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty healthy nonsmokers requiring bilateral soft tissue grafts were recruited for the study. For the 10 patients who required free gingival graft (FGG), 10 epithelialized grafts were taken from the tuberosity and 10 from the palate. The other 10 patients who required coronally advanced flap (CAF) and connective tissue graft (CTG) received 10 de-epithelialized grafts from the tuberosity and 10 from the palate. A total of 20 receded areas were treated with CAF and CTG. A total of 20 mucogingival defects were treated by FGG. Pain level was reported by the patient using a subjective score on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = very severe pain). The length, width, and thickness of the outcome was measured for the FGG group at 8 weeks. The percentage of root coverage along with the length, width, and thickness of the final outcome was measured for the FGG group as well as the CAF and CTG group. RESULTS: Pain level in the tuberosity donor site was significantly lower than in the palatal donor site during the first 2 postoperative weeks (2.6 ± 2.16 versus 5.9 ± 2.74 respectively, P < .001). Mean gingival thickness of the healed tuberosity donor graft was greater than of the palatal donor grafts in both groups; for CAF and CTG group 2.9 ± 0.5 versus 2.3 ± 0.6 mm, respectively (P = .016); for FGG group 2.7 ± 0.7 versus 2.1 ± 0.7, respectively (P = .026). No differences were observed in the length or width of both grafted sites at an 8-week follow-up. No significant difference in the mean percentage of root coverage resulting from tuberosity or palatal donor sites was noted (67 ± 12% versus 62 ± 13%, respectively, P = .102). CONCLUSION: Soft tissue grafts harvested from the tuberosity site might provide a better option than soft tissue donor grafts obtained from the palate in terms of function and less postoperative pain.

Treatment of noncarious cervical lesions by a subepithelial connective tissue graft versus a composite resin restoration.

This study compared two treatments for mild noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs): a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) versus a Class V composite resin restoration (CRR). Twenty-six sites with NCCLs were randomly assigned to be treated by CTG or CRR. Periodontal health parameters and dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) were recorded at baseline and 3 months postoperatively. Esthetics was also evaluated at 3 months. Results showed a significant improvement in all periodontal health parameters in the CTG treatment. The CTG treatment attained a mean 82% defect coverage with 75% of sites achieving complete coverage. Patients rated the CTG treatment to be significantly more esthetic (P = .03), while a clinician panel did not see an esthetic difference (P = .86). There was no difference in DH reduction between the two treatments (P = .81). In conclusion, the CTG treatment is superior to the CRR treatment for NCCLs based on periodontal health parameters. From a patient point of view, the CTG is the more esthetic treatment.

Socket preservation procedure with equine bone mineral: a case series.

Conventional dentoalveolar osseous augmentation procedures for creating bone volume for dental implant placement often involve the use of grafting materials with or without barrier membranes to foster selective cell and tissue repopulation. A study was conducted to determine the efficacy of equine particulate bone (Equimatrix, Osteohealth) to augment the creation of new bone and preserve the volume of bone at extraction sites for the purpose of placing an implant in an optimal position for restoration. Clinical and histologic evidence supported the suitability of equine particulate bone for extraction site augmentation that allowed dental implant placement after a 6-month healing period.