PurposeThe aim of this study is to assess the influence exerted by the observer's dental specialization and compare patients' opinion with observers' opinion of the esthetics of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone.MethodsForty-one adult patients, who were treated with a single implant in the esthetic zone, were enrolled in this study. Eight observers (2 periodontists, 2 prosthodontists, 2 orthodontists and 2 senior dental students) applied the pink esthetic score (PES)/white esthetic score (WES) to 41 implant-supported single restorations twice with an interval of 4 weeks. We used a visual analog scale (VAS) to assess the patient's satisfaction with the treatment outcome from an esthetic point of view.ResultsIn the PES/WES, very good and moderate intraobserver agreements were noted between the first and second rating. The mean total PES/WES was 11.19 ± 3.59. The mean PES was 5.17 ± 2.29 and mean WES was 6.02 ± 1.96. In the total PES/WES, the difference between the groups was not significant. However, in the WES, the difference between the groups was significant and prosthodontists were found to have assigned poorer ratings than the other groups. Periodontists gave higher ratings than prosthodontists and senior dental students. Orthodontists were clearly more critical than the other observers. The statistical analysis revealed statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth. However, the correlation between the total PES/WES and the VAS score for the first premolar was not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe PES/WES is an objective tool in rating the esthetics of implant supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues. Orthodontists were the most critical observers, while periodontists were more generous than other observers. The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the phototoxic effects of blue light exposure on periodontal pathogens in both planktonic and biofilm cultures.MethodsStrains of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingivalis, in planktonic or biofilm states, were exposed to visible light at wavelengths of 400.520 nm. A quartz-tungsten-halogen lamp at a power density of 500 mW/cm2 was used for the light source. Each sample was exposed to 15, 30, 60, 90, or 120 seconds of each bacterial strain in the planktonic or biofilm state. Confocal scanning laser microscopy (CSLM) was used to observe the distribution of live/dead bacterial cells in biofilms. After light exposure, the bacterial killing rates were calculated from colony forming unit (CFU) counts.ResultsCLSM images that were obtained from biofilms showed a mixture of dead and live bacterial cells extending to a depth of 30-45 µm. Obvious differences in the live-to-dead bacterial cell ratio were found in P. gingivalis biofilm according to light exposure time. In the planktonic state, almost all bacteria were killed with 60 seconds of light exposure to F. nucleatum (99.1%) and with 15 seconds to P. gingivalis (100%). In the biofilm state, however, only the CFU of P. gingivalis demonstrated a decreasing tendency with increasing light exposure time, and there was a lower efficacy of phototoxicity to P. gingivalis as biofilm than in the planktonic state.ConclusionsBlue light exposure using a dental halogen curing unit is effective in reducing periodontal pathogens in the planktonic state. It is recommended that an adjunctive exogenous photosensitizer be used and that pathogens be exposed to visible light for clinical antimicrobial periodontal therapy.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of implant shape and bone preparation on the primary stability of the implants using resonance frequency analysis.MethodsSixty bovine rib blocks were used for soft and hard bone models. Each rib block received two types of dental implant fixtures; a straight-screw type and tapered-screw type. Final drilling was done at three different depths for each implant type; 1 mm under-preparation, standard preparation, and 1 mm over-preparation. Immediately after fixture insertion, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured for each implant.ResultsRegardless of the bone type, the ISQ values of the straight-screw type and tapered-screw type implants were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Depth of bone preparation had no significant effect on the ISQ value of straight-screw type implants (P > 0.05). For the tapered-screw type implants, under-preparation significantly increased the ISQ value (P < 0.05), whereas overpreparation significantly decreased the ISQ value (P < 0.05).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, it is concluded that bone density seemed to have a prevailing effect over implant shape on primary stability. The primary stability of the tapered-screw type implants might be enhanced by delicate surgical techniques.

Periodontopathogens during orthodontic treatment were significantly reduced within 3 months of appliance removal. However, how long it takes to return to the preorthodontic composition of the subgingival microbiota and whether it happens at all remain to be seen.