No abstract

Background:The aim of the present clinical trial was to compare PRP combined with a DFDBA to DFDBA mixed with a normal saline solution in the treatment of human intrabony defects.Materials and Methods:Twenty interproximal intrabony osseous defects in twenty non-smoking, healthy subjects diagnosed with chronic periodontitis were treated in this study. Ten subjects each were randomly assigned to the test group (PRP + DFDBA) or the control group (DFDBA + saline). Clinical and radiographic measurements were made at baseline, three month and at six-month evaluation.Results:The results at three and six months, when compared to the baseline, indicated that both treatment modalities resulted in significant changes in all clinical parameters (gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment level and gingival recession; P < 0.01) and radiographic parameters (hard-tissue fill and bone-depth reduction; P < 0.01). However, the test group exhibited statistically significantly greater changes compared to the control group in plaque index at three months (P = 0.00), probing depth reduction at 6 months (P = 0.02) and the radiographic defect fill at 6 months (P = 0.01).Conclusions:Treatment with a combination of PRP and DFDBA led to a statistically significantly greater improvement in plaque index at 3 months, probing depth at 6 months and radiographic defect fill at 6 months in intrabony periodontal defects as compared to DFDBA with normal saline.

Purpose:The rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible is a challenge due to various limiting factors, of which the available vertical restorative space (AVRS) has been well understood in the literature. However, other anatomic variations such as arch form, arch size, and also the interforaminal distance (IFD) (due to the presence of mandibular nerve) are influential in the selection of size and position of implants, and thereby the prosthetic design.Materials and Method:In the present study, 30 edentulous patients from a group of 300 edentulous patients, representing all the three jaw relations (Class I, II, and III) were evaluated for designing a classification that could help in a comprehensive treatment plan for the edentulous mandible. Dental panoramic radiographs of each individual with a trial or final prosthesis were made. The horizontal IFD and AVRS values were calculated.Results:One-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test (multiple comparison) and Bonferroni method having P < 0.05 as significant value showed an overall mean of 38.9 mm for horizontal distance and 13.69 mm for the AVRS in 30 edentulous patients.Conclusion:The results showed that in the majority of cases (90%) there is insufficient space to place a bar attachment supported by five implants for mandibular overdentures. This suggests that a universal treatment plan cannot be followed due to varying anatomic factors. Hence, it becomes imperative to have a set of clinical guidelines based on the AVRS and IFD, for the selection of implant number and type of attachment. The article proposes a simple classification system based on the AVRS and IFD for establishing guidelines in the treatment planning of the edentulous mandible, to aid in selection of implant size, number, and position along with the associated prosthetic design.

Rehabilitation of mandibular resection poses functional, esthetic, and psychological challenges. The deviation and rotation of the mandible toward the resected side leaves the patient with almost no option of chewing. This is aggravated if the patient is edentulous. The case report discussed in this article was an edentulous patient taken up with the primary goal to limit deviation toward resected side and provide a stable and retentive prosthesis to the patient. Two implants were placed anteriorly, splinted with bar and clip supported superstructure. The splinted implants with bar and clip superstructure provided the mandibular prosthesis with retention and some support. A posterior implant was also placed in the region of mandibular first molar on the left side for added support. This provided with a tripod configuration and limited the prosthetic movement of the mandibular prosthesis. This case report highlights an alternate way toward the rehabilitation of edentulous mandible post mandibular resection when surgical reconstruction may not be feasible.