Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code.

The zygoma implant has been an effective option in the management of the atrophic edentulous maxilla as well as for maxillectomy defects. Brånemark introduced the zygoma implant not only as a solution to obtain posterior maxillary anchorage but also to expedite the rehabilitation process. The zygoma implant is a therapeutic option that deserves consideration in the treatment-planting process. This paper reviews the indications for zygoma implants and the surgical and prosthetic techniques (including new developments) and also reports on the clinical outcome of the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach. An overview of conventional grafting procedures is also included. Finally, a Zygoma Success Code, describing specific criteria to score the success of rehabilitation anchored on zygomatic implants, is proposed.

The comparison between implant stability quotient and bone-implant contact revisited: an experiment in Beagle dog.

BACKGROUND: Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is applied clinically for the assessment of implant stability, and the relevance of this application is widely accepted. However, the relationship between resonance frequency (RF) and other parameters of implant stability, such as the histomorphometrical bone-to-implant contact (BIC) parameter, has become controversial in the last decade. OBJECTIVE: To analyse and clarify the controversial relationship between RF and histomorphometrical BIC measurements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 36 dental implants (9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm; Biohorizons(®) Implant Systems Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA) with a soluble blasting media (sandblasting with soluble particles) surface were implanted in six beagle dog mandibles. RFA assessments were performed with a magnetic Osstel Mentor(®) device at the time of implant installation, and during the monitoring period at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, before implant retrieval. The dogs were sacrificed and the implants were removed in block after 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 and 0 weeks, respectively. One group was obtained at time 0, immediately after the implantation. The samples were embedded in methyl methacrylate polymers (Technovit(®) ) and cut along their long axis. BIC values were assessed by a non-subjective and systematic method based on backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BS-SEM) images. BIC% at the different time points was compared with the corresponding implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of the RFA assessment. RESULTS: No statistically significant correlation between BIC and ISQ values (Osstell Mentor(®) ) was identified. The absence of a relationship between these two parameters is in agreement with several previous studies in humans and experimental animals. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of correlation between BIC and ISQ values suggests that ISQ as determined by RFA is not able to identify the relationship between RF and histomorphometrical data.

A new standardized-automatic method for bone-to-implant contact histomorphometric analysis based on backscattered scanning electron microscopy images.

AIM: To establish an image analysis procedure for measuring the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) by a systematic non-subjective approach based on backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BS-SEM) images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 36 dental implants (9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm with a SBM surface) were implanted in six beagle dog mandibles. The implants were removed after 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks and then embedded in resin and cut along their long axis. Sample observation was performed by BS-SEM, acquiring 10 to 16 images per sample. Image processing and BIC determination were performed using the Fiji image processing package. Images were stitched, filtered, and thresholded to obtain a binary image of the whole implant that finally was dilated and outlined. The length of this outline was measured as the maximum possible BIC. The regions of coincidence between this line and the bone were measured as the real BIC. RESULTS: The proposed methodology for BIC determination, based on SEM, which has a much higher resolution than optical microscopy, allows the acquisition of highly discriminative images with great contrast between implant and bone. The high resolution and high contrast in SEM images provide more accurate results than those obtained by classical methods. Furthermore, the methodology of image analysis described in this study delineates precisely and automatically the contour of the implant, which results in non-biased measurements. The average percentage of BIC was 35%, ranging from 24.7 to 45.5%. These values were similar to the results documented in the literature for implants of similar roughness in animal models. CONCLUSIONS: A novel, non-subjective, and systematic method for measuring BIC is described based on BS-SEM images. The proposed methodology minimizes the shortcomings of the results obtained by previously described methods.

The long-term use of zygomatic implants: a 10-year clinical and radiographic report.

BACKGROUND: The zygoma implant has been an effective option in the short-term management of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. PURPOSE: To report on long-term outcomes in the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic (ZI) and regular implants (RI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 22 consecutive zygomatic patients in a maintenance program were included. Cumulative survival rate (CSR) of ZI, RI, prostheses, and complications were recorded during, at least, 10 years of loading. Implant mobility was tested using Periotest(®). Sinus health was radiographically and clinically assessed according to Lund-Mackay (L-M) score and Lanza and Kennedy survey, respectively. A satisfaction questionnaire and anatomical measurements were also performed. RESULTS: Patients received 22 prostheses, anchored on 172 implants. Forty-one were ZI. Three RI failed (10 years CSR = 97.71%). Two ZI were partly removed due to perimplant infection (10 years CSR = 95.12%). All patients maintained functional prostheses. One patient fractured framework twice. Loosening or fracturing screws happened in 11 patients. Seven patients fractured occlusal material. Four ZI abutments in two patients were disconnected because of uncomfortable prostheses. Alveolar height at the ZI head level on the right and left sides was 2.64 mm and 2.25 mm, respectively. Mean distance of ZI head center to ridge center, on the right and left sides was 4.54 mm and 5.67 mm, respectively. Mean Periotest values (PTv) of ZI were -4.375 PTv and -4.941 PTv before prostheses placement and after 10 years, respectively. Six patients experienced sinusitis 14-127 months postoperatively. 54.55% of the L-M scores did not present opacification (L-M = 0) in any sinus. Osteomeatal obstruction happened in eight patients (two bilateral). Two (9.09%) were diagnosed with sinusitis. Eighty-four percent reported satisfaction levels above 80%. 31.81% reported maximum satisfaction score (100%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxillae using ZI is a predictable procedure.

Zygomatic implants placed using the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach versus the classical technique: a proposed system to report rhinosinusitis diagnosis.

PURPOSE: The first aim of this study is to compare the outcomes in rehabilitating the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants (ZIs) and regular implants (RIs) using the classical zygomatic technique (CZT) versus the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA). The second goal of this paper is to propose a standardized system to report rhinosinusitis diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive zygomatic patients operated on from 1998 to 2002 and 80 consecutive zygomatic patients operated on from 2004 to October 2009 were selected. All included patients were in a maintenance program. Survival rates (SRs) of ZI and RI were recorded. Implants were individually tested using Periotest® (Periotest value [PTv], Siemens AG, Bensheim, UK). Sinus health was radiographically and clinically assessed according to Lund-Mackay system and Lanza and Kennedy survey recommended by Task Force on Rhinosinusitis for research outcomes. A satisfaction questionnaire (Oral Health Impact Profile for assessing health-related quality of life in Edentulous adults) and different anatomical measurements were also performed. RESULTS: No significant differences (p = .602) were observed with respect to SR between the two groups (95.12% vs 96.79%). Significant differences (p = .000) were found comparing measurements of ZI head distance to the alveolar crest (5.12 ± 2.38 mm vs 2.92 ± 2.30 mm). With the CZT, more palatal emergence of ZI was observed. PTv gave significantly greater stability for the CZT compared with the ZAGA group in both measurements (-4.38 ± 1.75 vs -2.49 ± 4.31, p = .000; -4.94 ± 1.46 vs -3.11 ± 5.06, p = .000). Lund-Mackay score was significantly lower for the ZAGA group (2.38 ± 3.86 vs 0.56 ± 1.26, p = .042). Statistically significant difference (p = .047) regarding the percentage of patients with no signs or symptoms of rhinosinusitis (Lanza and Kennedy test negative and Lund-Mackay score zero) was observed between groups (54.55% vs 76.25%, p = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures had similar clinical outcomes with respect to implant survival. The ZAGA concept is able to immediately rehabilitate the severely atrophic maxillae, minimizing the risk of maxillary sinus-associated pathology. Moreover, less bulky, more comfortable, and easy to clean prostheses are achieved.

Extrasinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla.

BACKGROUND: The surgical protocol for zygomatic fixtures prescribes an intrasinus approach ideally maintaining the sinus membrane intact and the implant body inside the sinus while gaining access to the zygomatic bone. In the presence of a pronounced buccal concavity, the implant head has to be placed far from the alveolar crest in a palatal direction, which results in a bulky bridge construction. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report on the preliminary experiences with zygomatic implants placed with an extrasinus approach in order to have the implant head emerging at or near the top of the alveolar crest. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous posterior maxilla were treated with 104 regular and 36 zygomatic implants as support of fixed dental bridges. Sixteen patients were treated bilaterally and four patients were treated unilaterally. The zygomatic implants were inserted by using an extrasinus surgical approach with the implant body passing from the alveolar crest through the buccal concavity into the zygomatic bone. This enabled placement of the implant head at or close to the alveolar crest. The patients were followed from 36 to 48 months after occlusal loading with a mean follow-up of 41 months. The relation of the zygomatic implants to the crest was measured and compared with a control group of 20 patients treated with conventional placement of zygomatic implants. RESULTS: No implants were lost during the study period. No pain, discomfort, or complications related to the extrasinus path of the zygomatic implants were recorded after the initial healing period and up to the 36th-month checkup. The zygomatic implants emerged, on average, 3.8 mm (SD 2.6) palatal to the top of the crest compared with 11.2 mm (SD 5.3) to the conventional technique. CONCLUSION: The present 3-year clinical study shows that an extrasinus approach can be utilized when placing zygomatic implants in patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the posterior maxilla. Moreover, the technique results in an emergence of the zygomatic fixture close to the top of the crest, which is beneficial from a cleaning and patient-comfort point of view.