Lip buccal mucosa traumatic overgrowth due to sucking habit - a 10-year follow-up of a non-surgical approach: a combination of behavioural and myofunctional therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic lesion of the lip buccal mucosa may develop due to a repetitive lip sucking habit, secondary to a dental space which opened in the dental in adult patients. The non surgical treatment approach is based on increasing of patient's awareness to the sucking habit along with the creation of a change in the oral and dental surrounding tissues. The following case included a failure to identify a traumatic habit of lower lip sucking, resulting in a buccal mucosa overgrowth. Combined conservative periodontal and orthodontic approach will be presented to address this clinical issue without any need for surgical intervention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 56 year old female patient presented with a complaint of unaesthetic appearance of the intraoral right buccal mucosa of the lower lip at rest position due to an intensive repetitive sucking habit of the right lower lip segment. We initiated a non surgical treatment approach including increasing the patient's awareness to the sucking habit, controlling the periodontal disease and orthodontic treatment to align and level the dental arch and to close the residual space. RESULT: The soft tissue overgrowth on the lip buccal mucosa almost completely subsided spontaneously as a result of conservative dental and behavioral management without the need for any oral surgery intervention. A 10 years follow-up revealed no repetitive oral mucosa overgrowth, no spaces reopening and no sucking habit redevelopment. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a morphological correction will assist the patient in breaking the habit and creating an environment that may effectively prevent the reoccurrence of the habit.

Comparison of clinical, radiographic and immunological parameters of teeth and different dental implant platforms.

A comparison between host response in teeth and dental implants was not made. Likewise, the association between host response and periodontal parameters has never been explored. The purpose of this study was to compare periodontal health around natural teeth and dental implants with different restorative platforms. Twenty-seven partially edentulous patients with dental implants, either external hex butt joint (n=28) or tapered Morse (n=45), were included in this study. Implants were in function for 1-6 years (mean 2.9). Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD); and clinical attachment level (CAL), were recorded at final examination; alveolar bone loss (ABL) was measured at baseline and final examination using panoramic radiographs. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were obtained from the Ramfjord index teeth and all implants and assayed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)), interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha). Differences between teeth and implants and between the two implant platforms were compared using Student's t-test. Correlations between cytokines, ABL and clinical parameters were analyzed using Pearson's co-efficient test. PI and GI were significantly higher in teeth than dental implants (1.2+/-0.5 vs. 0.8+/-0.5, P=0.0018; 1.2+/-0.3 vs. 1.1+/-0.3, P=0.048). Conversely, PD was deeper in implants (2.66+/-0.6 vs. 3.66+/-0.9, P=0.001). GI and PD around teeth and implants were positively associated (R=0.561, P=0.0023; R=0.39, P=0.0452). Greater ABL was observed around dental implants (1.62+/-2.2 mm) compared with teeth (0.49+/-0.3 mm). A positive correlation was found between both IL-1 (R=0.73, P=0.0064; R=0.52, P=0.0081) and TNFalpha (R=0.64, P=0.0246; R=0.46, P=0.091) and ABL in teeth and implants. Both implant platforms were similar clinically and radiographically; however, TNFalpha (2.49+/-0.3 vs. 4.79+/-0.5, P=0.004) and IL-1 (24.52+/-7.3 vs. 45.41+/-9.9, P=0.095) were higher for the non-submerged implants. In conclusion, IL-1 and TNFalpha are sensitive markers of ABL around teeth and implants. The two dental implant platforms showed a similar clinical and radiographic response; however, the greater host response in the non-submerged implants might suggest future bone loss.

The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus.

PURPOSE: Augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor is a well-documented technique and is generally accepted as a pure implantology procedure to facilitate placement of dental implants in the posterior atrophic maxilla. The objective of this report was to evaluate the significance of the sinus membrane perforations on the incidence, complications, and success rate of this procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received sinus floor augmentation and simultaneous placement of dental implant were included in this study. Subgroup I consisted of patients who had their sinus membrane perforated and repaired during the procedure with resorbable membrane. Subgroup II consisted of patients whose Schneiderian membrane was not perforated during the procedure. The patients were followed between 1 to 4 years after augmentation. RESULTS: All perforations were classified as class II or III. The success rate of the implants in the perforation group was 94.4%, and that for the nonperforation group was 93.9%. The difference between the 2 study groups was statistically not significant. A significant statistical correlation was found between the residual ridge height and the membrane perforation (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mainly due to technical difficulties, maxillary sinus membrane perforation occurs more frequently with a small height of residual alveolar bone. In this study, no statistical difference was observed in the success rate of the immediate implants placed with sinus bone grafting in patients whose membrane was perforated versus those patients in whom an intact membrane was maintained.