Background Post-extraction alveolar bone loss, mostly affecting the buccal plate, occurs despite regenerative procedures. To better understand possible determinants, this prospective case series assessed gingival blood perfusion and tissue molecular responses in relation to post-extraction regenerative outcomes. Methods Adults scheduled to receive bone grafting in maxillary, non-molar, single tooth extraction site were recruited. Clinical documentation included probing pocket depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), tissue biotype (TB), plaque (P) and bleeding. Wound closure was clinically evaluated. Gingival blood perfusion was measured by Laser Doppler Flowmetry (LDF). Wound fluid (WF) and gingival biopsies were analyzed for protein levels and gene expression, respectively, of relevant molecular markers. Bone healing outcomes were determined radiographically (Cone Beam Computerized Tomography; CBCT). Healing was followed for 4 months. Results Data from 15 patients (50 ± 5 years, 8 males) are reported. Postoperatively, neither complications nor changes in PD, KT or TB were observed. Postoperatively, LDF revealed decreased perfusion followed by hyperemia that persisted 1 month (p≤0.05). WF levels of angiopoietin-2, interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, and vascular endothelial growth factor peaked on day 6 (p≤0.05) and decreased thereafter. Only interleukin-8 and tumor necrosis factor-α exhibited increased gene expression. Linear bone changes were negligible. Volumetric bone changes were minimal but statistically significant, with more bone loss when membrane was used (p=0.05). Conclusion Gingival blood perfusion following post-extraction bone regenerative procedures follows an ischemia-reperfusion model. Transient increases in angiogenic factor levels and prolonged hyperemia characterize the soft tissue response. These soft tissue responses do not determine radiographic bone changes.

No abstract

Objectives Ginger, the powdered rhizome of the herb Zingiber officinale, is commonly used as a traditional medicine in many areas around the world. Anti‐inflammatory actions of its extract have been previously reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of ginger extract on matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and interleukin (IL) expression from human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) in vitro. Material and Methods HGFs were obtained from subcultures of biopsies from clinically healthy gingival tissues of 10 patients. Ginger extract was prepared from commercial powder of rhizome of Z. officinale (GZO) and its effect on cell viability was assessed using the 3‐[4,5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl]‐2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide cytotoxicity assay. Cells were then incubated and treated (except for the control samples) with either GZO, lipopolysaccharides (LPS), and GZO before or after LPS stimulation. Culture supernatants of all five samples were collected for the Milliplex analysis to measure MMP‐1, MMP‐2, MMP‐8, MMP‐9, IL‐1β, and IL‐8. One‐way analysis of variance and Duncan multiple range tests were used to compare the mean values of all groups. Results The gingerextract showed minimal cytotoxicity to HGFs even with the maximum tested concentration. Compared to the control group, GZO treatment alone caused little or no effect on the levels of expression of MMP‐1, MMP‐2, MMP‐8, MMP‐9, IL‐1β, and IL‐8. While GZO treatment after LPS stimulation significantly reduced the expression of MMP‐1, MMP‐2, MMP‐8, MMP‐9, and IL‐8 when compared to LPS alone. Comparing the control to LPS stimulation after GZO treatment, significant differences were detected for all tested MMPs and cytokines. Conclusions These findings suggest a potential role for ginger extract in inhibiting MMP and IL HGFs' expression in inflamed gingival tissues.

Background and objective: Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a periapical radiolucent lesion developed around the implant apex. This study aimed to investigate the Incidence of RPI in a single university dental hospital training center. Materials and Methods: All records of patients who received single Implants between 2016–2020 were screened. For cases that met inclusion criteria, clinical and radiographic data were analyzed. Results: A total of 215 were included and categorized as follows, Category A: implants were placed next to endodontically treated teeth (n = 58, 27%); category B, implants placed at the sites with previous endodontic involvement within 6 months of tooth extraction (n = 25, 11.6%); Category AB: implants placed at sites that fulfill the criteria of groups A and B (n = 18, 8.4%); and Category C: Implants that were placed next to vital teeth and at a site with no previous endodontic treatment or a site that was allowed to heal for more than six (n = 114, 53%). Categories A, B and AB served as the endodontically involved (EI) group, while category C served as non- endodontically involved (NEI) group. Only two sites (0.9%) were confirmed as RPI, both from group A (3.4%). Comparing all groups studied showed no statistically significant difference in RPI incidence. Conclusions: The incidence of RPI is low; however, endodontically treated teeth with periapical lesions (PALs) next to an implant site could contribute to RPI.