Effectiveness of implant-supported fixed partial denture in patients with history of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of implant-supported fixed partial denture (IS-FPD) in patients with history of periodontitis (HP) vs. patients with no history of periodontitis (NHP). METHODS: A literature search was performed on different databases on May 2020. Prospective and retrospective studies assessing survival (primary outcome), success and biological/mechanical complications of IS-FPDs in HP vs. NHP patients at ≥1 year after implant loading were evaluated. Meta-analyses were conducted by estimating hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. RESULTS: Of the initially identified 4096 articles, 349 underwent a full-text evaluation. Finally, 17 were included. Pooled data analyses showed that overall implant survival was significantly higher in the NHP than the HP group (HR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.37-3.09; I2  = 0%). This difference was noted when follow-up ≥5 years. The risk of peri-implantitis was higher in HP than NHP patients (RR = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.31-8.3; I2  = 0%), whereas the mean marginal bone level change over time was not different between the groups (SMD = -0.16 mm; 95% CI = -1.04-0.73; I2  = 98%). CONCLUSIONS: In partially edentulous patients receiving IS-FPDs, a history of periodontitis is associated with poorer survival rate and higher risk of peri-implantitis during a 5-10 years period after implant loading.

Comparative analysis of preclinical dental students' working postures using dental loupes and dental operating microscope.

BACKGROUND: Dentists are susceptible to musculoskeletal disorders due to prolonged static postures during dental treatments. Using a magnification tool like dental operating microscope (DOM) or the dental loupes may correct the operator's posture. Up until now, few studies have focused on preclinical dental students' posture when working with the DOM, while most of them have focused on the loupes. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyse the working posture of preclinical students during a dental restoration procedure, working with two different magnification methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a randomised cross-over design in which seventeen third year students were randomly divided into three groups. The exclusion criteria were previous contact with magnification systems and previous clinical working experience. Each student prepared 3 Black class 1 cavities on artificial lower molars: first with no magnification, following dental loupes and DOM. They were video-recorded throughout the preparation. Trunk, neck and upper-arm position were evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument. Students completed a questionnaire on their subjective perception of the two magnification systems. RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed significant improvement of the working posture using magnification systems compared to direct vision. The biggest improvement was obtained through the use of DOM, followed by the dental loupes. Students perceived dental loupes as being the most comfortable and easy to adapt to. They reported being more focused when using DOM. CONCLUSIONS: Both magnification systems had a positive impact on the working posture, DOM having the best results. Loupes showed better adaptability while DOM showed better concentration.