Purpose: Alveolar osteitis (AO) is the most common postoperative complication of dental extractions. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 1% versus 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel in reducing postoperative AO after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars, and assess the impact of treatment on the Oral HealthRelated Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Material and Methods: This clinical study was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Eighty eight patients underwent surgical extraction of one retained mandibular third molar with the intra-alveolar application of 0.2% CHX gel. Afterwards, they were assigned to one of two groups: 1% CHX gel (n=42) or 0.2% CHX gel (n=46). The patients applied the gel twice a day to the wound for one week. All patients were evaluated for AO. Results: In the 0.2% CHX gel group, 13% of AO incidence was found, while in the 1% CHX gel group, AO incidence was 7%, a difference that was not statistically significant. Variables such as sensation of pain and inflammation at baseline and during one week, as well as OHRQoL of the patients at 24 hours and 7 days post-extraction, gave no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: There are no significant differences in AO after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars, when comparing applying 1% CHX gel twice a day for 7 days with 0.2% CHX gel. Key words:Alveolar osteitis, chlorhexidine gel, third molar.

Clinical follow-up was conducted on 127 cylindrical implants placed in 21 patients after 5 years of function: 75 implants were coated with titanium plasma spray (TPS) and 52 implants were coated with hydroxyapatite (HA). The aim of the study was to assess possible differences in clinical function and success rates for each implant type. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted, and the periodontal indices of gingival bleeding, plaque, and calculus were measured. Cumulative data were analyzed for differences by implant type and jaw location. No significant differences were found between the 2 implant systems according to the periodontal parameters studied; however, 5-year success rates were 86.7% for TPS-coated implants and 94.3% for HA-coated implants. The periodontal probe index presented abnormal values in the patients with systemic disease and those who were provisionally restored with single-tooth restorations, complete screw-retained dentures, and fixed partial dentures. There were no differences regarding implant placement when mandibles and maxillae were compared. Long-term success rates were outstanding for HA-coated implants and acceptable for TPS-coated implants after 5 years of function. No significant differences were found between the 2 surfaces.

Background and objective Primary stability (PS) is remarkable for secondary stability and implant success. Surgical technique modifications seem to improve primary stability, especially in poor quality bone. The aim of this study was to compare the insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotients (ISQ) of implants placed with underpreparation, expanders, and standard surgical instrumentation in different bone types. Material and methods This randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled 108 patients (n=108 implants) distributed in three study groups: group 1 (n=36) underpreparation technique, group 2 (n=36) expander technique, and group 3 (n=36) conventional drilling. IT was recorded with a torque indicator. ISQ was recorded with resonance frequency analysis immediately after surgery. Results ISQ values were associated with the patient’s bone quality and were higher in bone quality type II (76.65) and type III (73.60) and lower in bone quality type IV (67.34), with statistically significant differences (p<0.0001). Lower stability results were obtained when conventional drilling (69.31) was used compared to the use of underpreparation (74.29) or expanders (73.99) with a level of significance of p=0.008 and p=0.005, respectively. Conclusions The surgical technique influences the PS when there is low-quality bone. In low-quality bones, conventional drilling obtains lower ISQ values. Clinical relevance Replace the conventional drilling technique for an alternative, underpreparation or expanders, in low-quality bone in order to achieve greater primary stability.