BackgroundTo assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up.Material and MethodsTwenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05).ResultsTwenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were nonsmokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, tooth extraction, dental implants, single-tooth, crestal bone, placement level.

Background Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis includes a correct mechanical debridement of the implant surface to reduce the inflammation and recondition the soft tissues. The aim of the study was to evaluate the results of a single phase of non-surgical therapy by comparing the effect of curettes and ultrasounds versus curettes and abrasive air polisher (Air-Flow) in the peri-implant tissue conditions, and patient satisfaction. Material and Methods A double-blind randomized and controlled prospective clinical study was conducted on patients in peri-implant maintenance phase diagnosed of peri-implantitis treated in the Oral Surgery Unit of the Stomatology Department of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of the University of Valencia, between September of 2017 and May of 2018. They were divided into 2 groups: Group 1: curettes and ultrasounds, and Group 2: curettes and Air-Flow. The clinical and radiological baseline parameters were evaluated after 3-weeks of treatment, as well as patient satisfaction. Results The sample included 34 patients. Group 1 (17 patients, 38 implants) and Group 2 (17 patients, 32 implants). All the variables improved statistically significantly after treatment in both groups, with the exception of recessions and keratinized mucosa and bone loss that did not vary. When comparing both groups, the type of treatment did not influence the majority of the variables, with the exception of the plaque index ( p =0.011) and modified bleeding index from the palatine ( p =0.048), which reduced statistically significant in the group 2, as well as the patient satisfaction which was higher in the group 2 ( p <0.001). Conclusions An initial phase of non-surgical treatment achieves an improvement of the peri-implant clinical parameters, thought the method of debridement used seems not to influence. Key words: Peri-implantitis, peri-implant disease, non-surgical treatment, air-abrasive device, mechanical debridement.

Purpose: To evaluate and compare peri-implant health, marginal bone loss and success of immediate and delayed implant placement for rehabilitation with full-arch fixed prostheses. Material and Methods: The present study was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, clinical preliminary trial. Patients were randomized into two treatment groups. In Group A implants were placed immediately post-extraction and in Group B six months after extraction. The following control time-points were established: one week, six months and twelve months after loading. Measurements were taken of peri-implant crevicular fluid volume, plaque index, gingival retraction, keratinized mucosa, probing depth, modified gingival index and presence of mucositis. Implant success rates were evaluated for the two groups. The study sample included fifteen patients (nine women and six men) with a mean average age of 63.7 years. One hundred and forty-four implants were placed: 76 placed in healed sites and 68 placed immediately. Results: At the moment of prosthetic loading, keratinized mucosa width and probing depth were higher in immediate implants than delayed implants, with statistically significant differences. However, after six and twelve months, differences between groups had disappeared. Bone loss was 0.54 ± 0.39 mm for immediate implants and 0.66 ± 0.25 mm for delayed implants (p=0.201). No implants failed in either group. Conclusions: The present study with a short follow-up and a small sample yielded no statistically significant differences in implant success and peri-implant marginal bone loss between immediate and delayed implants with fixed full-arch prostheses. Peri-implant health showed no statistically significant differences for any of the studied parameters (crevicular fluid volume, plaque index, gingival retraction, keratinized mucosa, probing depth, modified gingival index and presence of mucositis) at the twelve-month follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, delayed implants, peri-implant health, success rate.

No abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of articaine at 4% (epinephrine 1:100,000) with bupivacaine at 0.5% (epinephrine 1:200,000) for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Study Design: This was a randomized, double blind, split-mouth, clinical trial. Thirty-six patients took part and underwent extraction of 72 lower third molars. The variables studied were: anesthetic latency time, intra-operative bleeding, anesthetic quality, hemodynamic changes during the surgical intervention, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues, post-operative analgesia and post-operative pain at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours using a visual analogue scale, as well as any need for additional rescue medication. Results: Latency time was 2.0 minutes for articaine and 3.1 minutes for bupivacaine, with statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Bleeding was greater when bupivacaine was used (p<0.05) and anesthetic quality was greater with articaine (p<0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer with bupivacaine (p<0.05). Differences in post-operative analgesia, haemodynamic changes, post-operative pain and the quantity of rescue medication consumed were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: Articaine showed greater clinical efficacy than bupivacaine, reducing latency time, bleeding, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues and achieving higher anesthetic quality, requiring less reinforcement during surgery than bupivacaine. Key words:Articaine, bupivacaine, anesthetic efficacy, impacted mandibular third molar.