RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This double-blind randomized clinical trial assessed the effectiveness of 0.2% hyaluronic acid (HA) gel as an adjunct to scaling and root planning (SRP) in patients with periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), focusing on changes in clinical periodontal parameters, the expression of inflammatory mediators, and oral pathogens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The randomized clinical trial involved 36 participants, 18 DM patients, and 18 healthy patients. The participants in each group were randomly assigned to receive placebo or HA gel after SRP. Gingival crevicular fluid and subgingival plaque samples were taken before treatment and at 4-week follow-up. Clinical parameters, interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) and IL-10 levels, and proportions of Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Paired t-test (parametric data) or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (nonparametric data) was used for intragroup comparison between baseline and follow-up, and comparisons between groups one-way analysis of variance test (parametric data) or Kruskal-Wallis test (nonparametric data). RESULTS: At 4 weeks, most of the groups showed statistically significant decreases (p ≤ 0.05) in various clinical and biomolecular parameters. However, there were exceptions: the pocket probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) parameter did not significantly decrease for the placebo (p > 0.05) non-DM group, and the IL-10 parameter in the DM HA gel group (p = 0.108). Regarding bacterial proportions, the non-DM and DM placebo group exhibited significant test results for Pg after 4 weeks (p ≤ 0.05). In the case of Fn bacteria proportions, they decreased in all groups, but these results were not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05). An intergroup analysis revealed no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) for bleeding on probing (BOP), PPD, and both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Only clinical attachment loss (CAL) exhibited a statistically significant intergroup difference 0.042. CONCLUSION: The use of 0.2% HA gel into periodontal pockets alongside SRP, for both diabetic and healthy individuals, showed no statistically significant variances in clinical, biomolecular, and microbiological measures.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Implant placement in the maxillary anterior area requires sufficient quantity and quality of both soft and hard tissue. In cases where soft and hard tissues are insufficient, additional regeneration using biomaterials is recommended. Treatment using bovine-derived xenograft and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may increase bone volume and soft tissue thickness. Case and management: A 65-year-old woman sought help for discomfort and aesthetic issues with her denture, reporting missing teeth (11, 12, 13, 14, and 21) and bone volume shrinkage due to disuse atrophy. Intraoral examination revealed 1 mm gingival thickness. CBCT showed labio-palatal bone thickness of 6.0 mm, 5.8 mm, and 4.7 mm for teeth 21, 12 and 14, respectively. Implant planning and surgical guide fabrication were carried out before the surgery. Surgery included the placement of implants 3.3 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length, with the use of xenograft and ADM. Three months post-op, improvements in soft and hard tissues were observed, with a final prosthesis being a long-span implant-supported bridge. CONCLUSIONS: Disuse alveolar atrophy causes soft and hard tissue deficiency. The use of xenograft and ADM show favourable results even on a geriatric patient.
RESUMEN
Connective tissue graft (CTG) serves as a gold standard for gingival recession therapy. Yet the availability of CTG is limited, and it increases patient morbidity. Allogenic acellular dermal matrix (AADM) and xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) have been proven to be effective substitutes of CTG although the long-term stability is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term stability outcome of gingival recession therapy using AADM and XDM compared to CTG. This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were extracted independently from several online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase). Five of 233 publications were included for final qualitative analysis and meta-analysis focusing on the mean difference of clinical parameters such as recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), tissue thickness (TT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and mean root coverage (MRC). Meta-analyses of RD, RW, CAL, TT, KTW, and MRC display an overall mean of 0.2 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.45 to -0.05), 0.29 mm (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.08), 0.2 mm (95% CI: -0.69 to 0.29), 0.25 mm (95% CI: -0.53 to 0.03), 0.26 mm (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.02), and 9.19% (95% CI: -13.95 to -4.43]), respectively, favoring the CTG. PD was the only parameter that favored the AADM or XDM with an overall mean of 0.03 mm (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.11). In all, if the long-term stability is the goal, the CTG is considered superior for gingival recession therapy. However, if it is contraindicated, the AADM and XDM might be considered as alternatives.
RESUMEN
Background: Dental implants are widely used and in order to answer to esthetic demands, zirconia has been introduced as an abutment material as an alternative to titanium. Several studies have been published on this topic, but the results have been often inconsistent. The objective of the present study is to systematically analyze the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes of titanium and zirconia implant abutments. The study was designed as a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: This systematic review is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. A MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS literature search was performed up to and including June 2021. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and tAMSTAR2 was used to assess the quality of the systematic reviews. Results: The electronic search identified 1146 papers, and 175 duplicates were removed. After manual screening, 954 studies were excluded and the final analysis was conducted on 11 papers. Both mechanical and esthetic outcomes and biological complications were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that titanium abutments have a better mechanical resistance than zirconia ones. Plaque accumulation is reported to be slightly higher on titanium but without any significant inflammatory process. The esthetic outcomes seem to be more related to the thickness (>3 mm) of the soft tissues than to the abutment material.