RESUMO
Background: Accessory infraorbital foramen (AIOF) can change the normal course of emerging branches of the infraorbital nerve and blood vessels exiting the infraorbital foramen (IOF). This study aimed to examine the AIOF, number of foramina, and their position in relation to IOF using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: We performed a retrospective CBCT assessment of hospital records between January 2018 and August 2022. The CBCT of 507 patients were examined to extract information on the prevalence, number, position, linear distance from the IOF, and diameter of AIOF in relation to demographic factors. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence of AIOF. Mean and standard deviation were used to calculate the linear distance and diameter of the AIOF, respectively. The AIOFs, its distribution, and number were compared between sexes and sides using the chi-square test. The independent t-test and Mann-Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the mean difference between the sexes and sides. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: In this current study, the prevalence of AIOF was 7.1% (36 of the 507 patients). Additionally, the current study examined the number of foramina using a single foramen on each side and double foramina located bilaterally at a distance from the AIOF to the IOF. The mean AIOF diameter was also studied, and the AIOF position with respect to the IOF on CBCT was superomedial or inferomedial. There were no statistically significant associations between any of the parameters assessed in this study when comparing sex and sides. Conclusions: A greater number of patients with AIOF presented with a single foramen and unilateral occurrence, without a statistically significant difference. The AIOF was most commonly located superomedial to the IOF.
RESUMO
Dental implants have been utilized for many years to treat individuals with missing teeth. To optimize the long-term success rate of such implants, new designs, surfaces, and materials have been analyzed. It is important for the clinician to have a background in the field of implant surface design, to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of the available options, and to be aware of the alterations in surface structure that may occur following installation. This article provides a detailed review of the structure and the surface characteristics of dental implants, the modifications of implant surface, as well as the methods of evaluating implant surface structure. Moreover, it provides information concerning the structural changes that may take place at the time of dental implant placement. It is important for clinicians to be aware of such changes to plan and execute implant procedures with the highest possible success and implant survival rates.
RESUMO
The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dental implant-retained overdentures have been chosen as the treatment of choice for complete mandibular removable dentures. Dental implants, such as mini dental implants, and components for retaining overdentures, are commercially available. However, comparative clinical studies comparing mini dental implants and conventional dental implants using different attachment for implant-retained overdentures have not been well documented. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of using two mini dental implants with Equator® attachments, four mini dental implants with Equator attachments, or two conventional dental implants with ball attachments, by means of a randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients received implant-retained mandibular overdentures in the interforaminal region. The patients were divided into three groups. In Groups 1 and 2, two and four mini dental implants, respectively, were placed and immediately loaded by overdentures, using Equator® attachments. In Group 3, conventional implants were placed. After osseointegration, the implants were loaded by overdentures, using ball attachments. The study distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included changes in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months postinsertion, prosthodontic complications and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate in the three clinical groups after one year was 100%. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) in clinical results regarding the number (two or four) of mini dental implants with Equator attachments. However, there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction between those receiving mini dental implants with Equator attachments and conventional dental implants with ball attachments. The marginal bone resorption in Group 3 was significantly higher than in Groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between Groups 1 and 2 but it was significantly higher than that in Group3 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Two and four mini dental implants can be immediately used successfully for retaining lower complete dentures, as shown after a 1-year follow up.
