Primary and Secondary Stability of Short (4 mm) Versus Standard (≥ 10 mm) Implants Placed in the Same Mandible: A Prospective Clinical Study.

Purpose: To compare the stability of short vs standard (ie, regular-length) implants in the edentulous mandible. Materials and Methods: In this prospective clinical study, 20 patients with edentulous mandibles received four implants each-two short implants (4 mm) in the region of the first molar and two standard implants (≥ 10 mm) in the interforaminal region. Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement and at the day of the abutment connection after 3 months of healing in order to provide an implant stability quotient (ISQ). Results: Implant stability in the two implant groups at placement (ISQ: short 66.2; standard 68.2) and at abutment connection (ISQ: short 74.9; standard 75.7) did not differ substantially or statistically significantly (both P > .05). Findings did not change after statistically controlling for potential confounders such as bone quality and bone crest width. At abutment connection, 95% of the short and 97.5% of the standard implants demonstrated sufficient stability for conventional loading (P > .05). Conclusions: Short dental implants demonstrate similar primary and secondary stability compared to standard implants and seem to be a promising treatment option for rehabilitation of patients with edentulous mandibles.

The natural history of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a nationwide study by the Hellenic Society for the study of IBD.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has evolved into a global health crisis, variably affecting the management of patients with chronic illnesses. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may represent a vulnerable population due to frequent administration of immune-modifying treatments. We aimed to depict the natural history of COVID-19 infection in Greek patients with IBD at a nationwide level via unbiased reporting of all cases that were registered during the sequential waves of the pandemic. METHODS: Following a national call from the Hellenic Society for the study of IBD, we enrolled all IBD patients with established diagnoses of COVID-19. Clinical and epidemiological data, including COVID-19 modifying factors and IBD-associated therapies, were analyzed against adverse outcomes (hospitalization, ICU admission and death). RESULTS: We identified 154 IBD patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 (men: 58.4%; mean age=41.7 years [SD = 14.9]; CD: 64.3%). Adverse outcomes were reported in 34 patients (22.1%), including 3 ICU admissions (1.9%) and two deaths (1.3%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI, 1-1.08) and dyspnea at presentation (OR = 7.36, 95% CI, 1.84-29.46) were associated with worse outcomes of COVID-19 infection. In contrast, treatment with biologics, in particular anti-TNF agents, exerted a protective effect against an unfavorable COVID-19 disease course (OR = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.16-0.99). Patients on subcutaneous biologics were more likely to halt treatment due to the infection as compared to those on intravenous biologics. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients who developed COVID-19 had a benign course with adverse outcomes being infrequent. Treatment with anti-TNF biologics had a protective effect, thus, supporting continuation of therapy during the pandemic.

Patient perceived burden of implant placement compared to surgical tooth removal and apicectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how patients actually perceive implant placement, to evaluate whether patients' perceived burdens are related to specific stages during implant placement, and to compare patients' perceptions during implant placement with other surgical procedures. METHODS: A sample of 287 patients was consecutively recruited. Only patients with implantations (n=45), surgical tooth removal (n=147), or apicectomies (n=95) were included. Patients' perceptions during oral surgery and implantation were assessed using the Burdens in Oral Surgery Questionnaire (BiOS-Q). Effects of treatment on BiOS-Q total and domain scores were assessed using multivariate linear regression analyses, and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were computed. RESULTS: Overall, patients' perceived burdens during oral surgery were low indicated by a mean BiOS-Q total score of 28.5 points, with lowest scores for Side effects (19.4) and highest scores for Anesthesia (34.1). Among treatment groups, implantation was perceived least unpleasant. This was related to lower burdens during Bone and soft tissue manipulation during implantation than during surgical tooth removal (difference: 14.8 points; d=0.8) or apicectomy (difference: 13.1 points; d=0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation has a low overall perceived burden and is significantly less burdensome during bone and soft tissue manipulation than surgical tooth removal or apicectomy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Patients can be informed that implant placement is less unpleasing than other commonly performed oral surgery procedures.