Call Us Today
Materials and methods
The purpose of this study is to survey clinicians’ choice of peri-implant instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied as compared to that reported in current literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
48 clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were detected, Tukey’s posthoc test was applied.
The questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice. There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature.
This study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the clinicians may be higher than advised.
Despite the design and engineering challenges, the Water Pik Sonic Fusion team created an innovative product that blends sonic brush technology and water flossing, all housed into one novel device.
Periodontal maintenance appointments can be very fulfilling, but they can also be challenging if the patient hasn’t kept up with home care. Here are one seasoned hygienist’s tried-and-true methods for making these appointments great for both patients and clinicians.
To compare the clinical outcome (in particular of marginal peri-implant bone level changes) between immediately loaded straight implants which had definitive abutments placed at implant placement and never removed versus implants which had no intermediate abutments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Thirty-two edentulous patients had one of their jaws rehabilitated with a provisional screw-retained resin reinforced cross-arch fixed prosthesis supported by four immediately loaded implants: two central straight implants and two either tilted or straight distal implants. The two central straight implants were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive or not an intermediate abutment (Multi-Unit Abutment, MUA) according to a parallel group design. To be immediately loaded implants had to be inserted with a minimum torque of 30 Ncm, which was achieved by all implants. After 4 months, definitive screw-retained metal-ceramic prostheses were delivered and patients were followed-up to 5 years after loading. Prostheses were removed every 8 months to facilitate professionally delivered maintenance. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes and bleeding on probing (BoP).
Five-years after loading one patient dropped out from each group. No implant or prosthetic failure occurred. Three patients of the abutment group versus one of the no-abutment group were affected by complications (risk difference = 0.125; 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.37; Fisher exact test, P = 0.600). At 5 years, both groups lost marginal bone in a statistically significant way (0.32 ± 0.40 mm for patients of the abutment group and 0.35 ± 0.29 mm for patients of the no-abutment group), with no difference in bone loss between groups at patient levels (difference = 0.03 mm; 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.29 mm; P = 0.809). At 5 years, BoP was significantly higher in the no-abutment group than in the abutment group (difference between medians = 25%; 95% CI: 12.5% to 25%; P < 0.001). By considering only the average of the two central study implants per patient with and without intermediate abutments, there were no differences in bone loss (difference: -0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.31 mm; P = 0.763), while marginal bleeding was significantly higher in the no-abutment group (difference between medians = 25%; 95% CI: 0% to 50%; P = 0.004).
The present results suggest that intermediate abutments may not be needed at immediately loaded cross-arch screw-retained prostheses, unless there is the necessity to correct implant angulation.