Crestal Bone Loss around Dental Implants: Platform Switching vs Platform Matching-A Retrospective Study.

AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the vertical and horizontal marginal bone levels in platform-switched and platform-matched dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, 50 dental implants were placed in 50 patients over a 1-year period. Measurement was performed from the implant shoulder to the most apical and horizontal marginal defect by periapical radiographs to examine the changes of peri-implant alveolar bone before and 12 months after prosthodontic restoration delivery. RESULTS: These marginal bone measurements showed a bone gain of 0.53 ± 0.98 mm in the vertical gap and 0.52 ± 0.93 mm in the horizontal gap of the platform matching, while in the platform switching, a bone gain of 1.33 ± 1 mm in the vertical gap (p < 0.05) and 1.60 ± 0.56 mm in the horizontal gap was found. Statistically significant difference was found for bone regeneration in the vertical gap between the two groups (p < 0.05) using t-test with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical test version 17. CONCLUSION: The crestal bone around the implants can be preserved with platform-switching concept and it can be applied in clinical condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The crestal bone around the implants can be preserved with platform-switching concept.

Risk Assessment in Long-term Survival Rates of Dental Implants: A Prospective Clinical Study.

AIM: The present study was done to analyze the risk factors associated with dental implants in its survival rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted on 208 patients with 425 dental implants placed. Patients were divided into four groups: group I (diabetes), group II (periodontitis), group III (smoking), and group IV (bruxism). All patients were followed for 8 to 10 years for the survival rates. RESULTS: Out of 425 dental implants, 145 were inserted in 72 males and 280 in 136 females. The difference was significant (p = 0.01). Group I had 16 males and 36 females, group II had 20 males and 32 females, group III had 28 males and 24 females, and group IV had 8 males and 44 females. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Out of 425 implants, 90 (21.17%) had failures: 24 dental implants (29%) in group I, 22 dental implants (15.2%) group II, 34 dental implants (27%) in group III, and 10 dental implants (13%) in group IV showed failure. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Success rate was 70.7% in group I, 83.3% in group II, 80.9% in group III, and 86.3% in group IV. The difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Diabetes, periodontitis, bruxism, and smoking are among various causative factors which affect the survival rate of dental implants. These are risk factors leading to implant failures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Diabetes, periodontitis, bruxism, and smoking are among various causative factors which affect the survival rate of dental implants.

Evaluation of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Randomized Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed orthodontic treatment is time-consuming procedure. Pain is usually associated with orthodontic treatment. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) duration and pain perception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blind splint-mouth controlled clinical study includes 20 (8 males and 12 females) orthodontic patients requiring bilateral canine retraction. Time taken for canine retraction with LLLT (Group A) over control (Group B) quadrant on the same patient was assessed along with pain experience using facial pain scale. The data were tabulated and statistically evaluated using SPSS 20 for windows (Microsoft, Chicago, IL, USA) and t-test with P < 0.05. The difference in pain was evaluated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: There was no difference in values for age and sex of patient for tooth movement and pain (P > 0.05). There was statistically significant decrease in rate of canine retraction in Group A compared to Group B. There was statistically significant difference for maxillary and mandibular arches in Group A whereas it was not significant in Group B. Pain experience was statistically significant till 2nd day, and after 3rd day, it was not significant between the groups. CONCLUSION: LLLT can reduce the fixed OTM timing and pain experience.