ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to systematically review the circumstance of oral cancer around osseointegrated dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted through the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases. The search was restricted for articles published during the last 21 years from January 1996 to April 2017 and articles were limited to English language. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were reviewed, and 19 of the most relevant articles that are suitable to the criteria were selected. Case reports were analysed when oral cancer was present in patients with dental implants. Finally, the present data included 28 patients. CONCLUSIONS: A direct link between dental implants and oral cancer was not found. It was observed that there were no significant differences in number of incidences of oral cancer between patients with history of malignancy and those without. More research should be made to document such cases. It was noticed that in many cases oral cancer around dental implant present itself as peri-implantitis, correct differential diagnosis is essential in such cases.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: There aren't any objective methods that may help in standard evaluation of oral surgery patient's psycho-emotional status. Without any standardized evaluation, two main problems appear: heterogeneity between studies and ineffective patient's evaluation. Therefore, Universal Scale in Oral Surgery (USOS) for patient's psycho-emotional status rating has previously been proposed by authors. The aim of present study is to assess the clinical effectivity and validate the Universal Scale in Oral Surgery in case of outpatient tooth extraction for adult healthy patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical trial to validate the USOS for patient's psycho-emotional status rating was performed. In total 90 patients, that came for outpatient dental extraction to Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department ambulatory, were enrolled in clinical trial. Patients filled self-reported questionnaires before the procedure. Operating surgeon rated USOS for patient's psycho-emotional status rating doctor's part questionnaire after the procedure. 4 - 6 weeks later all patients were asked to fill USOS for patient's psycho-emotional status rating questionnaire retrospectively. RESULTS: According to the statistical analysis, the final composition of USOS for patient's psycho-emotional status rating that would fit to reliability coefficient should be composed from 6 patient part questions and 3 general doctor part questions. CONCLUSIONS: Universal Scale in Oral Surgery for patient's psycho-emotional status rating is a novel, doctor and patient rated scale which is suitable for clinical and scientific usage.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the influence of systemic diseases or medications used in their treatment on the dental implant therapy success. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search strategy was implemented on the National Library of Medicine database (MEDLINE) (Ovid) and EMBASE electronic databases between January 2006 and January 2016. Human studies with available English articles analysing the relationship between dental implant therapy success and systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, AIDS/HIV, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, Crohn's disease, cardiovascular diseases, scleroderma, Sjögren's syndrome, lichen planus, ectodermal dysplasia, post-transplantation status, were included in present review according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO system with the code CRD42016033662. RESULTS: Present review included forty one retrospective and prospective follow-up studies, case-control studies, case report series and cohort studies. Despite some limitations this study reveals positive results of implantation in most systemic conditions that should be interpreted with caution. Influence of cardiovascular diseases on the dental implantation success should be explored deeply, because of controversial results and likelihood of comorbidity expressed by a history of cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis. There is only a weak relationship with bone density in osteoporosis and implant failure. All the other diseases did not show significant effect on implantation success. CONCLUSIONS: Recent studies with low strength of evidence and controversy show that systemic diseases may have potential effect on the success of implantation, but further detailed studies are needed to provide these findings.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The task of Group 1 was to review and update the existing data concerning aetiology, risk factors and pathogenesis of peri-implantitis. Previous history of periodontitis, poor oral hygiene, smoking and presence of general diseases have been considered among the aetiological risk factors for the onset of peri-implant pathologies, while late dental implant failures are commonly associated with peri-implantitis and/or with the application of incorrect biomechanical forces. Special interest was paid to the bone cells dynamics as part of the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The main areas indagated by this group were as follows: influence of smoking, history of periodontitis and general diseases on peri-implantitis development, bio-mechanics of implant loading and its influence on peri-implant bone and cellular dynamics related to the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. The literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in Preface chapter. RESULTS: The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. One systematic review with meta-analysis, three systematic reviews and one theoretical analysis were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.
