Comparison of peri‐implant clinical and radiographic status around short (6 mm in length) dental implants placed in cigarette‐smokers and never‐smokers: Six‐year follow‐up results

Background

It is hypothesized that peri‐implant clinical and radiographic inflammatory parameters (probing depth [PD], bleeding on probing [BOP] and plaque index [PI]; and radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) are worse among cigarette‐smokers (CS) compared with never‐smokers (NS) with short implants.

Purpose

The present 6‐year follow‐up retrospective study compared the peri‐implant clinical and radiographic parameters in CS and NS with short dental implants (6 mm in length).

Materials and methods

Fifty‐six male individuals were included. These individuals divided into 2 groups as follows: (a) Group‐1: 29 self‐reported systemically healthy CS with 48 short‐implants; and (b) Group‐2: 27 self‐reported systemically healthy NS with 43 short implants. Peri‐implant PD, PI, BOP, and CBL were measured. Group comparisons were done using the Kruskal‐Wallis test and sample size was estimated. Level of significance was set at P values < .05.

Results

In groups 1 and 2, the follow‐up durations were 6.2 ± 0.1 years and 6.1 ± 0.3 years, respectively. A cigarette smoking history of 8.9 ± 3.6 pack years was reported by individuals in Group‐1. At follow‐up, scores of peri‐implant PD, BOP, PI, and mesial and distal CBL were comparable around short implants in both groups.

Conclusion

Under strict oral hygiene maintenance protocols, short dental implants can remain functionally stable in CS in a manner similar to NS.     

Gap measurement and bond strength of five selected adhesive systems bonded to tooth structure

The ability of a restorative material to bond and seal the interface with tooth structure is perhaps the most significant factor in determining resistance to marginal caries. Thus, the quality and durability of marginal seal and bond strength are major considerations in the selection of restorative materials. The purpose of this study was to compare the bond strength and marginal discrepancies of five adhesive systems: All-Bond 2, Clearfil Liner Bond, KB 200, ProBond and AELITE Bond. Twenty-five buccal and 25 lingual cavities were prepared in 25 caries-free extracted molar teeth, giving 10 cavities for each of the 5 adhesive systems. All teeth were restored with the resin composite Pertac Hybrid, or PRISMA Total Performance Hybrid with their appropriate adhesive systems. After restoration, the teeth were thermocycled, were stained with a 1.5% aqueous solution of a procion dye (reactive orange 14) and sectioned coronally with a saw microtome. Three sections of 200 μm thickness were prepared from each restoration which were then examined microscopically to measure marginal gap widths using a confocal tandem microscope. Shear bond strength measurements were carried out on the dentine bond using a universal testing machine. The All-Bond 2 adhesive system was found to have higher shear bond strength and to have the least gap with at the cementodentinal margin.     

Pfeiffer syndrome: oral healthcare management and description of new dental findings in a craniosynostosis

Pfeiffer syndrome is a rare fibroblast growth factor receptor‐related craniosynostosis with variable clinical presentations. We describe new dental findings of hypodontia, microdontia, dilacerations, and radicular dentin dysplasia in a 19‐year‐old girl, and discuss the oral health management.     

Gender Differences in the Amount of Gingival Display During Smiling Using Two Intraoral Dental Biometric Measurements

Purpose: The aims of this study were to compare gender differences in the width and length of the maxillary right central incisor and the horizontal and vertical overlap of the anterior teeth and to determine the relationships of these two intraoral dental biometric measurements with the amount of gingival display during smiling. Materials and Methods: A total of 61 men and 66 women were included in this study. For each participant, the gingival tissue display during smiling was judged to be either visible or not, and the maximum mesiodistal and incisogingival dimensions of the maxillary right central incisor were measured, along with the amount of horizontal and vertical overlap of anterior teeth using a digital caliper. Gender differences in these parameters and the relationship between subjects showing gingival display when smiling and the two intraoral dental biometric measurements were determined. Statistical analyses of data were performed using SPSS (V11) software. The mean scores for gender were calculated, and a Student's t‐test was used to identify significant differences between both groups. Significance level was set to 0.05. Results: The age of the participants ranged between 23 and 52, with a mean of 33.47 ± 9.07 years. A relatively small percentage of the subjects (22.05%) displayed gingiva when smiling. More women displayed gingiva when smiling than men, with a 2:1 female:male ratio. Men exhibited significantly (p < 0.05) wider (8.76 ± 0.66 mm) and longer (10.28 ± 0.88 mm) central incisors compared to women (7.92 ± 0.72 mm; 9.27 ± 0.93 mm width and length, respectively). No gender differences were found in the width‐to‐length ratio. Subjects with gingival display had significantly more horizontal (4.28 ± 1.21 mm; p < 0.001), and vertical (3.52 ± 0.66 mm; p < 0.05) overlap of anterior teeth compared to those who did not display gingiva when smiling (2.40 ± 1.03 and 2.30 ± 0.93 mm, respectively). Conclusions: Significantly more women displayed gingiva in smiling. Men had significantly wider and longer central incisors. No differences were recorded between men and women relative to both the horizontal and vertical anterior tooth overlap. Subjects who displayed gingiva when smiling had more horizontal and vertical overlap of anterior teeth.     

Is Titanium Sensitivity Associated with Allergic Reactions in Patients with Dental Implants? A Systematic Review

Background: A worrying correlation which seems to be overlooked by clinicians is allergic reactions to titanium (Ti) in patients with dental implants. Purpose: The aim of the present review study was to assess whether or not Ti sensitivity is associated with allergic reactions in patients with dental implants. Materials and Methods: To address the focused question “Can Ti cause allergic reactions in patients with dental implants?”, databases were explored from 1977 until May 2010 using a combination of the following keywords: “allergy,”“dental,”“hypersensitivity,”“implant,”“oral,” and “Titanium.” Letters to the editor and unpublished data were excluded. Results: Seven studies (six clinical and one experimental) were included. The participants were aged between 14.3 and 84.1 years. In five clinical studies, Ti implants were inserted in the mandible. Five studies reported dermal inflammatory conditions and gingival hyperplasia as allergic reactions in patients with Ti dental implants. A case report presented swelling in submental and labial sulcus and hyperemia of soft tissues in a patient with Ti dental implants. Two studies reported that Ti implants are well tolerated in host tissues. The patch test was performed in two clinical studies for the diagnosis of allergic reactions. Memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay and lymphocyte transformation tests were also performed. Conclusion: The significance of Ti as a cause of allergic reactions in patients with dental implants remains unproven.