A two-year prospective study to compare the peri-implant parameters of posterior implant-supported single crowns with and without mesial proximal contact loss.

Background/purpose: Interproximal contact loss may lead to food impaction and result in subsequently periodontal complications. The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate the peri-implant parameters of posterior implant-supported single crowns (SCs) with and without mesial proximal contact loss after 2 years of follow-up. Material and methods: Twenty-six patients with a total of 40 posterior implant-supported SCs with mesial adjacent natural teeth were observed for 24 months after crown insertion. The mesial proximal contacts were assessed by dental floss, then were classified as tight, weak, and open contacts. The following peri-implant parameters were evaluated, including modified plaque index (MPI), modified gingival index (MGI), and probing depth (PD) were conducted at six sites per tooth (mesiofacail, midfacial, distofacial, mesiolingual, mid-lingual and distolingual) in the 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month following visits. Furthermore, radiographs were taken regularly in 12- and 24-month recall sections for measuring the marginal bone loss (MBL). Results: At 12-month observation, the incidence rates of weak and open contacts were 22.5 % and 12.5 %; whereas after 24 months of clinical service, the rates came up with 12.9 % and 25.6 %, respectively. No significant differences were found between the tight, weak, and open contact groups in the parameters of MPI, MGI, or PD (P > 0.05) at 12- and 24-month follow-up. None of the mean differences of the peri-implant parameters: MPI, MGI, PD and MBL had significant differences between the tight, weak, and open contact groups after 1 and 2 years of clinical service (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The presence of open, weak, and tight mesial proximal contacts had no significant effects on the peri-implant tissue conditions.

Patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes and oral health-related quality of life after treatment with traditional and modified protocols for complete dentures.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Conventional complete denture treatment course requires six appointments, but modified protocol only takes four appointments. This study compared the conventional and modified protocol for complete denture fabrication regarding patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 patients accepted complete denture treatment. According to complete denture treatment protocol, these patients were divided into the conventional group (group C, n = 12) and the modified group (group M, n = 12). Group C used the conventional protocol and required six appointments. Group M used the one-appointment master impression and jaw relation record technique, and it took four appointments. Data of oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14), satisfaction scale and the number of recalls in the first year were collected for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean OHIP-14 scores in group C and group M were 13.79 ±â€¯3.81 and 15.33 ±â€¯5.25, respectively. In terms of satisfaction, the mean scores in group C and group M were 8.33 ±â€¯0.61 points and 8.66 ±â€¯1.13 points, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the group C and M in terms of participant ratings for satisfaction and OHIP-14. At the same time, the results indicated that group M significantly reduced the number of postinsertion visits (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In terms of OHIP-14 and patients' satisfaction, the modified treatment protocol is comparable to the conventional protocol. Based on the number of recalls in the first year, the modified treatment protocol has a better clinical outcome.