Surface Topography Has Less Influence on Peri-Implantitis than Patient Factors: A Comparative Clinical Study of Two Dental Implant Systems.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the risk of peri-implantitis (PI) onset among different implant systems and evaluate the severity of the disease from a population of patients treated in a university clinic. Furthermore, this study intends to thoroughly examine the surface properties of the implant systems that have been identified and investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses. RESULTS: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Oral Hygiene, Periodontal Health, and Treatment Satisfaction of Orthodontic Retention Patients up to Ten Years after Treatment-A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: This cross-sectional study evaluated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on (1) oral hygiene, (2) periodontal health, (3) retainer failure, (4) orthodontic treatment satisfaction, and (5) outcome satisfaction in orthodontic retention patients. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether orthodontic retention treatment is associated with patient-reported outcome measures on oral hygiene, periodontal health, and treatment satisfaction. Methods: A ten-item questionnaire on the five PROMs was conducted among 211 consecutive retention patients up to ten years following orthodontic treatment. Linear regression models were computed to detect possible associations between the PROMs and retention treatment or patient characteristics. Results: The presence of a fixed lingual retainer was not associated with the reduced ability to perform oral hygiene, self-perceived periodontal health, or orthodontic outcome satisfaction. Older patients were more content with the orthodontic treatment result (p < 0.05). Patients with fixed lingual retainers in the mandible were less satisfied with the course of orthodontic treatment (p < 0.05). Smokers more often reported gingival bleeding (p < 0.05). Females reported increased gingival recessions (p < 0.05) and perceived their teeth as longer than before treatment (p < 0.05). Longer orthodontic treatment duration corresponded to retainer failure (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In general, long-term orthodontic retention patients were satisfied with orthodontic treatment. These patients reported the satisfactory ability to perform adequate oral hygiene and periodontal health, and they communicated a high degree of treatment and outcome contentment. However, patients with a retainer in the mandible were less satisfied with orthodontic treatment.

Periodontal status in long-term orthodontic retention patients up to 10 years after treatment - a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess periodontal status in long-term orthodontic retention patients and investigate possible risk indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recessions (GR) and calculus were recorded in 211 patients with or without fixed retainers. RESULTS: Periodontal parameters were within the limits of clinically healthy periodontium. The use of fixed retainers was associated with higher PI in the maxilla (ß = 1.10 [0.37]; p <.05). Older age was associated with higher PI in the mandible (ß = 0.27 [0.11]; p <.05). Smoking was associated with gingival bleeding on both palatal (ß = 0.63 [0.16]; p < .01) and labial sides in the maxilla (ß = 0.46 [0.20]; p <.05). Smoking was also associated with increased prevalence of GR in the mandible (ß = 0.24 [0.07]; p <.01), while use of snuff had similar effect on the labial side in the maxilla (ß = 0.35 [0.08]; p <.01). Higher age (ß = 0.05 [0.02]; p <.05) and the presence of a retainer (ß = 0.23 [0.07]; p < .05) were associated with calculus accumulation on the lingual side in the mandible. CONCLUSION: The present observational study suggest that long-term fixed retainers alone have no detrimental effect on the periodontium. Additional factors may increase the risk of plaque deposits and increased probing pocket depths. Further prosepective studies are needed to confirm the present outcome.

Provision of treatment for periodontitis in Norway in 2013 - a national profile.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have reported high levels of periodontal diseases worldwide. Over the last 40 years, Norway has introduced several measures including major financial support to reduce periodontal diseases. The aims of this study were to establish the present level of periodontal treatment, the treatment profiles for the nation, and to assess if long-term clinical data support the findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The database of the Norwegian Health Economic Administration for 2013 was analysed to establish the prevalence of treated periodontitis in a cross-sectional register-based study. Treatment profiles including patients' ages, gender, geographic distributions, treatment types, prosthetic tooth replacements and the treatment distributions between the dental health professionals were assessed. RESULTS: 4.4% of the 20 years and older age group was treated for periodontitis. More females (55%) than males (45%) were treated with predominance in the 60-69 year age group. Private general dental practitioners performed 43.8% of the total periodontal treatment, while dental hygienists performed 22.5%. Periodontists performed 32.8% of the non-surgical and 74.6% of the surgical treatment. Tooth replacements for teeth lost due to periodontal diseases were provided for 0.57% of the population. Clinical studies from Norway showed marked improvements in the periodontal parameters examined over the last 40 years. CONCLUSION: The frequency of periodontal treatments in Norway was low, but sufficient to maintain major tooth retention for the population. Long-term external clinical data supported these findings. The treatments were well distributed between private general dental practitioners, hygienists and periodontists.