ABSTRACT
Background: This literature review evaluates the mechanisms and efficacy of different types of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for treating peri-implantitis by reviewing existing experimental studies to provide guidance for the clinical application of antibacterial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in oral implants. Materials and Methods: From February 2001 to February 2021, we have collected 152 randomized controlled trials of aPDT for peri-implantitis by searching the experimental studies and clinical trials published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases via online search. After screening the retrieved literature, we finally selected 10 statistically significant literature for evaluation and review. Results: Compared with the traditional nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis, the aPDT was superior to the traditional mechanical irrigation treatment group in terms of periodontal indexes PD, BOP, PLI, and postoperative effect, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the combination of the aPDT and other treatments shows the synergistic antibacterial effect, signifying better clinical effect in many aspects (P < 0.05). In these 10 papers, by comparing the probe depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), synosteosis, and periodontal pathogenic bacteria detection, etc., obtained after treating peri-implantitis by application of the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, and using the SPSS data analysis software for statistical data processing, we found that the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy combined with other periodontal treatments has a more prominent postoperative effect. Meanwhile, the antibacterial photodynamic therapy with targeted action of photosensitizer has strong specificity to some bacteria, while the synthetic photosensitize for antibacterial photodynamic therapy can show good inactivation effect on broad-spectrum periodontal anaerobes without side effect. Conclusion: The experimental studies and clinical data of antibacterial photodynamic therapy for treating peri-implantitis show a good postoperative treatment effect. In addition, it did not develop resistance due to the use of antibiotic drugs. Owing to multiple advantages from combining antibacterial photodynamic therapy and other treatments, it is applicable for clinical treatment.
Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Peri-Implantitis , Photochemotherapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage , Humans , Peri-Implantitis/drug therapy , Photochemotherapy/methods , Photosensitizing Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare characteristics of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and related structures according to Angle class I, II1, II2, and III. METHODS: 123 Chinese patients (13-36 years old, 60 males, and 63 females) were classified in four groups according to Angle's classification: skeletal class I (31 patients), skeletal class II division 1 (30 patients), skeletal class II division 2 (30 patients), and skeletal class III (32 patients). Left and right TMJs of each subject were evaluated independently with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The position of condyle in the joint fossa was analyzed according to Pullinger. RESULTS: There were significant differences between class III subjects and class I, II1, II2 in the superior joint space (p < 0.05). Compared with class II1, II2, and III subjects, the height and diameter of condyle in class I was significantly larger (p < 0.05). The width of joint fossa was significantly larger in Angle class III than in Angle class I, II1, and II2, while the depth was significantly smaller. The condyle position in class III subjects was more anteriorly displaced compared with that in class I subjects. In class II2 patients, the condyle position was mainly concentric and posterior. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in condylar morphology, joint space, joint fossa morphology, and condylar position between different Angle classifications.
Subject(s)
Malocclusion, Angle Class II , Malocclusion , Adolescent , Adult , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , Dentition, Permanent , Female , Humans , Male , Malocclusion, Angle Class II/diagnostic imaging , Mandibular Condyle/diagnostic imaging , Temporomandibular Joint/diagnostic imaging , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare characteristics of temporomandibular joint and related structures according to gender and Angle â , â ¡1, â ¡2 and â ¢ class. METHODS: Cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed in 123 patients with malocclusion, and three-dimensional reconstruction was performed with Mimics 19.0 software. The anterior, upper, and posterior spaces of temporomandibular joint, width and depth of acetabulum, height and horizontal angle of condyle, radius of condyle, and anteroposterior and long-axis diameter of condyle were analysed on sagittal plane. The position of condyle in the joint fossa was analyzed using Pullinger methods. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the long axis and radius of the condyles between Class â and â ¢, Class â and â ¡1, respectively (P<0.05). The widest acetabulum was observed in Class â ¢, followed by Class â , â ¡1, and â ¡2. Moreover, the deepest acetabulum was found in Class â ¡2, followed by Class â ¡1, â , and â ¢. No significant differences were detected in the left and right condyle-related structures among different temporomandibular articulation. In addition, the anterior articular space was significantly larger in Class â patients, compared with Class â ¡2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in condylar morphology, joint space, joint fossa morphology and condylar position between different Angle classifications.
