Background: This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence on the efficacy of surgical and non-surgical debridement techniques in the treatment of peri-implantitis lesions without the use of any antimicrobials. Method: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane) were used, alongside hand searches, to find relevant articles. Full-text articles that were randomised controlled trials, published in the English language from 2011 onwards without pre-operative, peri-operative and post-operative antibiotic usage were included. The study was conducted according to the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P protocols, the latest Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and each investigated intervention was evaluated using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: The search yielded 2718 results. After initial screening, 38 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. From these, 11 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. These 11 articles described six non-surgical and five surgical debridement therapies. Most articles were classified as having either a high risk of bias or presenting with some concerns. Small sample sizes, in combination with this risk of bias, meant that all interventions were adjudged to be of either low or very low quality of evidence. Conclusion: While all investigated modalities displayed some sort of efficacy, this review suggests that a surgical approach may be best suited to treating peri-implantitis lesions in the absence of antibiotic therapy. Despite this weak indication, further research is required in this field.

Background/Aim: This survey-based study aims to explore the clinical management protocols of followed by Australian periodontists in relation to peri-implant diseases. Materials and Methods: A five-part online questionnaire was developed and administered through email. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, with the univariate associations between a categorical outcome and the variables evaluated using Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Results: The survey yielded 99 responses, resulting in a response rate of 41.8%. Most participants were male and aged 35–44 years. More than a quarter of practitioners had been placing implants for 6–10 years and almost two-fifths of practitioners placed 1–10 implants per month. The estimated prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in the general Australian population was 47% and 21%, respectively. Practitioners reported using systemic antibiotics to manage peri-implant mucositis (7%) and (72%) peri-implantitis lesions, with a combination of amoxicillin and metronidazole. Most common treatment modalities were oral hygiene instructions, nonsurgical debridement and antimicrobial gel/rinse. Surgical debridement and systemic antibiotics were also often used for peri-implantitis treatment. Practitioners preferred a 3-month clinical follow-up and 6-month radiographic evaluation. Furthermore, three-quarters of practitioners rated their management as moderately effective, although upwards of nine-tenths expressed the need for further training and awareness. Conclusion: This study confirms a significant use of empirical treatment modalities due to lack of standard therapeutic protocol. However, some approaches followed by the specialists may provide a basis to formulate a therapeutic protocol for peri-implant disease management.

Purpose: Peri-implantitis therapy and implant maintenance are fundamental practices to enhance the longevity of zirconia implants. However, the use of physical decontamination methods, including hand instruments, polishing devices, ultrasonic scalers, and laser systems, might damage the implant surfaces. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surfaces. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using 5 electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Hand searching of the OpenGrey database, reference lists, and 6 selected dental journals was also performed to identify relevant studies satisfying the eligibility criteria. Results: Overall, 1049 unique studies were identified, of which 11 studies were deemed suitable for final review. Air-abrasive devices with glycine powder, prophylaxis cups, and ultrasonic scalers with non-metal tips were found to cause minimal to no damage to implantgrade zirconia surfaces. However, hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers with metal tips have the potential to cause major damage to zirconia surfaces. In terms of laser systems, diode lasers appear to be the most promising, as no surface alterations were reported following their use. Conclusion:Air-abrasive devices and prophylaxis cups are safe for zirconia implant decontamination due to preservation of the implant surface integrity. In contrast, hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers with metal tips should be used with caution. Recommendations for the use of laser systems could not be fully established due to significant heterogeneity among included studies, but diode lasers may be the best-suited system. Further research-specifically, randomised controlled trials-would further confirm the effects of physical decontamination methods in a clinical setting.

The sealing ability of amalgam and Gallium Alloy Gallium Filling (GF) root-end fillings was evaluated in vitro using a highly uniform collection of sheep incisor roots. Following ultrasonic canal debridement and orthograde obturation with gutta-percha and sealer, root-end cavities were prepared in 100 roots and filled with amalgam (50 teeth) or Gallium Alloy GF (50 teeth), Twenty-five teeth from each group were subjected to immediate dye leakage assessment under vacuum conditions with methylene blue dye (2%), pH 7. Linear dye penetration was measured following longitudinal splitting. The other 25 teeth from each group were incubated in Ringer's solution for 12 weeks before leakage assessment by the same method. Control teeth were included in each component of the study. Mean linear dye penetration was: amalgam--5.17 mm at baseline, 2.33 mm after 12 week's incubation; Gallium Alloy GF--2.21 mm at baseline, 1.41 mm after 12 week's incubation. The apical marginal seal of both materials improved significantly following storage in Ringer's solution (P<0.001). Gallium Alloy GF provided a better apical seal than amalgam, both at baseline and following storage (P<0.001). Subjective evaluation of the general handling characteristics of Gallium Alloy GF revealed that it was a more difficult material to manipulate than amalgam, largely because of its wetting ability and consequent adhesion to dental instruments.

Background/aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge of school professionals regarding the emergency management of dental avulsion. Methods This cross‐sectional study utilised a self‐administered, pilot‐tested questionnaire for school staff from primary schools. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis – the prevalence and univariate associations between a categorical outcome and the variables under consideration, were evaluated using Pearson’s Chi‐squared test. Results This survey yielded a response rate of 43.5% (n = 313). Approximately 60% of participants held valid first‐aid certificates and 23% had received avulsion advice previously. Over 80% of participants expressed an unwillingness to replant an avulsed tooth, and over 90% believed that there should be greater awareness in this area. This unwillingness to replant was influenced by respondents’ age (x2 = 8.13 df = 3, P = 0.043) and receiving advice previously (x2 = 13.15, df = 1, P < 0.001). Under‐preparedness was related to years of experience (x2 = 15.03, df = 5, P = 0.010), first‐aid training (x2 = 6.41, df = 1, P = 0.011) and receiving advice previously (x2 = 43.47, df = 1, P < 0.001). It was also evident that first‐aid training positively influenced appropriate dental referral in the management pathway (x2 = 10.49, df = 1, P = 0.001). Conclusion This study suggests that there is an inadequate level of knowledge on the appropriate management of dental avulsion injuries amongst primary school professionals in Australia.