The objective was to compare the efficiency of probiotic (PT) versus antibiotic therapy (AT) as adjuvants to non-surgical-mechanical debridement (NSMD) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (Pi-M). Volunteers with Pi-M were encompassed. Therapeutically, patients were randomly divided into 3-groups: (a) Group-1: NSMD + PT; (b) Group-2: NSMD + AT; and (c) Group-3: NSMD alone. Peri-implant plaque index (P.I), bleeding on probing (B.O.P), probing depth (P.D) and crestal-bone-loss (C.B.L) were recorded at baseline and at 3-and 6-months follow-up. P<0.05 was selected as the indicator of statistical significance. Forty-two male individuals (14, 14 and 14 in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively) were included. At 3- and 6-months of follow-up, P.I (P<0.01), B.O.P (P<0.01) and P.D (P<0.01) were higher in Group-2 than Group-1. At 3-months of follow-up, P.I (P<0.01), B.O.P (P<0.01) and P.D (P<0.01) were higher in Group-3 than Group-2. At 6-months of follow-up, P.I, B.O.P and P.D were comparable in groups 2 and 3. In Group-3, P.I, B.O.P and P.D were comparable with the respective baseline values at 6-months of follow-up. The C.B.L in all groups remained unchanged up to 6-months of follow-up. The NSMD with adjuvant PT is more effective than adjunct AT in the treatment of Pi-M for up to 3-months.

A BSTRACT Background: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an intense negative drug response causing increasing bone destruction in the maxillofacial area of patients. Aims and Objectives: To evaluate the knowledge and attitude of dental practitioner regarding risk factors of MRONJ in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire survey was carried out in King Khalid Hospital, Al-Kharj among dental practioners. Results: Approximately 60% of the practioners had a poor knowledge and there was a weak positive correlation with work experience. Conclusion: Poor knowledge regarding the MRONJ invites a continuing dental education specially to focus on general practioners.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical need and impact of socket preservation to protect the bone for future dental implant placement. Moreover, we aimed to list down various methods of socket preservation by going through randomized clinical trials. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for all relevant publications, where researchers compared various methods and tools for socket preservation. All eight randomized controlled trials mentioned several methods that are helpful in preserving bone levels both horizontally and vertically. The studies included in this systematic review demonstrate that each material has certain efficacy in preserving the socket after tooth extraction for future implant placement. Socket preservation methods and materials are effective in preparing patients for future prostheses.

No abstract

Titanium is the main component of dental implants. It is also routinely used as a framework material for implant-supported full-arch prostheses due to its low density, biocompatibility, and other mechanical properties. Remarkable mechanical properties such as lesser mass density and higher young’s modulus of graphene have gained popularity among scientists, improving the properties of biomedical implants. Thus, our study aimed to compare the outcome through the von Mises stresses generated on All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, as well as on the framework, and evaluate the effect of stress patterns on the crestal bone around implants in the mandible. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) study was carried out using edentulous mandible models. Four 3D FEA models with 3 and 6 implants were used (Model 1: Titanium bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 2: Graphene bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 3: Titanium bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted; Model 4: Graphene bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted) in order to simulate endosseous implant designs. The implant measuring 4.2 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length were used. The most distal implants in the 3-implant models were placed with angulation of 30 degrees; in 6 implants, they were vertically placed. All the models were analyzed for vertical and oblique axis with a single force magnitude of 100 N. In all four implant models and under loading conditions, the peak stress points were always on the neck of the most distal implant. von Mises stresses were within the normal stress range. In a conventional six-straight implant model supported by a titanium framework, the cortical stress in the region of implants was 25.27 MPa, whereas, in the graphene framework, it was 12.18 MPa. Under vertical load, there was a significant difference in the cortical stress around the tilted implants (30 degrees) in the 3-implant system of titanium and graphene frameworks, respectively, 70.31 MPa and 21.27 MPa. The graphene framework demonstrated better results than the titanium framework for the conventional six-implant system under vertical load, achieving stress of 30.09 MPa and 76.60 MPa, respectively. In the case of the 3-implant system, a significant difference in the bar stress was observed between graphene and titanium, respectively, 256.32 MPa and 180.1 MPa of bar stress. Within the limitation of this study, the peri-implant stresses were decreased using graphene framework models. Hence, it was possible to conclude that the best load-bearing capacity results were found in the graphene framework group compared to the titanium framework for All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, even though both materials are reliable options used as framework materials in implant-supported full-arch prostheses.