When celebrating 100 yr of dental research in the Nordic dental research community (i.e. Nordisk Odontologisk Förening (NOF)), it is relevant to include dental implant treatment. In essence, the successful progress of implant treatment has added both to the quality of life for patients and also to many aspects of professional development and job satisfaction for dentists. When appreciating the success story it also seems relevant to highlight some of the problems related to this treatment. Both technical and biological complications have often been ignored when reporting long-term results following implant treatment. Different opinions have been expressed in relation to the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Some even choose to ignore this condition as a clinical problem. This article presents a short overview of peri-implant diseases (i.e. peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). The lack of internationally agreed disease definitions for peri-implant diseases, as with periodontitis, results in wide variation of estimates for the occurrence of peri-implant diseases when epidemiological data are reported. The profession still strives to find and define the best way to deal with peri-implant diseases once they are accurately diagnosed. Awareness of the tissue conditions in the peri-implant area, and relevant action when indicated, seems to be critical for the continued long-term successful outcome of dental implant treatment.

The Board of EAO (European Association for Osseointegration) has discussed an initiative to explore the conditions to establish a Dental Implant Register. It was suggested to bring this issue to the EAO Consensus Conference 2018 for a discussion and to possibly propose relevant and manageable parameters. This article presents some select examples from quality registers in the medical field. Based on the experience of established registers, essentially in the medical field, factors considered to be of importance, if and when establishing a Dental Implant Register are introduced and discussed.

ObjectiveIn orthognathic surgery, antibiotics are prescribed to reduce the risk of postoperative infection. However, there is lack of consensus over the appropriate drug, the dose and duration of administration. The aim of this complex systematic review was to assess the effect of antibiotics on postoperative infections in orthognathic surgery.MethodsBoth systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed. Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE (embase.com), PubMed (non-indexed articles) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publications were searched. The primary studies were assessed using GRADE and the systematic reviews by AMSTAR.ResultsScreening of abstracts yielded 6 systematic reviews and 36 primary studies warranting full text scrutiny. In total,14 primary studies were assessed for risk of bias. Assessment of the included systematic reviews identified two studies with a moderate risk of bias, due to inclusion in the meta-analyses of primary studies with a high risk of bias. Quality assessment of the primary studies disclosed one with a moderate risk of bias and one with a low risk. The former compared a single dose of antibiotic with 24 hour prophylaxis using the same antibiotic; the latter compared oral and intravenous administration of antibiotics. Given the limited number of acceptable studies, no statistical analysis was undertaken, as it was unlikely to contribute any relevant information.ConclusionWith respect to antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery, most of the studies to date have been poorly conducted and reported. Thus scientific uncertainty remains as to the preferred antibiotic and the optimal duration of administration.

BackgroundIn order to gain a better understanding of how growth of the alveolar bone is linked to the vertical development of the face, the purpose of this study was to investigate if there is an association between the cross-sectional morphology of the maxillary and mandibular bodies with the craniofacial height, using images from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).MethodsFrom 450 pre-treatment CBCT scans, 180 were selected to be included in the study. Lateral head images were generated from the CBCT scans and were used to categorise subjects into three groups based on their vertical craniofacial height. Cross-sectional images from CBCT volumes were reformatted of the maxillary and mandibular bodies at five locations in the maxilla and five in the mandible. Each image was measured at one height and two width measurements. Statistical analysis performed was the one-way analysis of variance with a Tukey post hoc test. A significance level of 5% was used in all comparisons.ResultsPatients with large vertical craniofacial height had a significantly higher cross-sectional area both in the maxilla and in the mandible. In the same group, the cross-sectional area was significantly thinner in the mandible compared with the other two groups, especially in the anterior region.ConclusionsThis study further highlights the close relationship between craniofacial height and alveolar bone dimensions and contributes with important knowledge for planning and follow-up of comprehensive dental- and orthodontic treatments.

Background: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on the outcome of bone augmentation and subsequent dental implant placement by combining the recommended quality assessment methods for systematic reviews and primary studies. Materials and methods: This is a complex systematic review in which systematic reviews as well as primary studies are scrutinised. A search of Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE, PubMed and Health technology assessment (HTA) organisations as-well as a complementary handsearch was carried out. Selected primary studies were assessed using GRADE. Each study was reviewed by three authors independently. Results: Abstract screening yielded six potential systematic reviews allocated for full-text inspection. A total of ten primary studies were read in full-text. No relevant systematic reviews regarding the topic of this article were found. The quality assessment resulted in two primary studies with a moderate risk of bias. Of the two studies with a moderate risk of bias, one compared a single dose of clindamycin 600 mg preoperatively with the same preoperative dose followed by four doses of 300 mg every 6 h. The second study compared a single dose prophylaxis of two different types of antibiotic compounds. Conclusion:In conclusion, the scientific evidence regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing the risk of infection in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures during dental implant placement is very limited. The infection rate as compared to nonusage of prophylactic antibiotics, selection of the most suitable compound, and the optimal duration of prophylactic treatment is still unknown.