Microbiota of alveolar osteitis after permanent tooth extractions: A systematic review.

Alveolar osteitis (AO) or dry socket after dental extractions is a common postoperative complication characterized by the presence of severe pain associated with an empty socket. Although some authors consider AO to be related to an alteration of the blood clot, the underlying etiology remains unclear, and recent reports suggest that bacteria might play an important role. A systematic review was made, compiling relevant references from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and the Web of Science databases to determine which bacteria have been identified in AO sockets after dental extractions. Papers published between 1980-2019, identifying the bacteria present in AO sockets after tooth extractions, were included. Data were displayed in tables, and a descriptive analysis was carried out. After the screening process, four papers were analyzed, comprising a total of 138 samples from 138 patients with AO. The most commonly detected bacteria were Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Parvimonas and Peptostreptococcus. Two studies also showed the microbiota of patients that developed AO after dental extractions to be apparently different from that of patients without postoperative complications. These results indicate that bacteria may play an important role in the pathogenesis of AO, though further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Is measurement of the gingival biotype reliable? Agreement among different assessment methods

BACKGROUND: To determine agreement among the most commonly used methods for assessing the gingival biotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to a sample of dentists practicing in Spain. The question-naire was based on the evaluation of 5 cases involving different gingival biotype assessment methods. Dentists were required to classify the cases as having a "thin", "thick" or "not able to classify" biotype. Each case was as-sessed using a frontal intraoral photo of the anterior teeth; an enlarged photo of the buccal aspect of the tooth with a periodontal probe inserted inside the sulcus; and the real thickness measured in mm with a calibrated needle. Agreement among the classifications was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 surveys were analyzed. The most commonly used assessment method was visual evaluation of the morphology of the gingiva and the teeth (62.5%). Concordance among the three different methods was weak (kappa = 0.278). Agreement among the classification methods was greater in extreme cases (thinner and thicker gingival thickness). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used methods for assessing gingival biotype are not reliable. The three tested methods show poor to weak agreement, which leads to non-reliable estimation of the gingival biotype

No disponible

Is measurement of the gingival biotype reliable? Agreement among different assessment methods.

BACKGROUND: To determine agreement among the most commonly used methods for assessing the gingival biotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to a sample of dentists practicing in Spain. The questionnaire was based on the evaluation of 5 cases involving different gingival biotype assessment methods. Dentists were required to classify the cases as having a "thin", "thick" or "not able to classify" biotype. Each case was assessed using a frontal intraoral photo of the anterior teeth; an enlarged photo of the buccal aspect of the tooth with a periodontal probe inserted inside the sulcus; and the real thickness measured in mm with a calibrated needle. Agreement among the classifications was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 surveys were analyzed. The most commonly used assessment method was visual evaluation of the morphology of the gingiva and the teeth (62.5%). Concordance among the three different methods was weak (kappa = 0.278). Agreement among the classification methods was greater in extreme cases (thinner and thicker gingival thickness). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly used methods for assessing gingival biotype are not reliable. The three tested methods show poor to weak agreement, which leads to non-reliable estimation of the gingival biotype.