No abstract

Background: Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that is mainly initiated by plaque biofilm which may require treatment using periodontal flap surgery. Recently, diode lasers have become popular in the field of periodontology owing to advantages such as antibacterial effect, promoting angiogenesis, and providing hemostasis. However, scientific data on application of diode laser in periodontal flap surgery and its benefits are limited. Hence, the aim of the study was to investigate the adjunctive effect of removal of remnant pocket epithelium by 980 nm diode laser and biostimulation in modified Widman flap (MWF) surgery for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 patients with generalized chronic periodontitis with pocket probing depth (PPD) ≥5mm post Phase I therapy were selected for this split-mouth study. MWF surgery was performed in Group 1, and in Group 2, MWF surgery with adjunctive diode laser de-epithelization and biostimulation was done. Clinical parameters including PPD, clinical attachment level, plaque index, and gingival index were recorded at baseline and 3 months following treatment, and postprocedural pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] score) was assessed 1-week posttreatment. In addition, colony-forming units/milliliter (CFU/ml) of anaerobic bacteria at baseline and 3 months were microbiologically examined. Results: MWF surgery along with diode laser led to a significant improvement in Group 2 compared to Group 1 in clinical parameters such as PPD, relative clinical attachment level, VAS score as well as microbial parameter CFU/ml after 3 months. Conclusion: Diode laser as an adjunct to MWF in chronic periodontitis can provide enhanced clinical attachment gain with little postoperative discomfort.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Cochlear implants (CIs) are of immense benefit to children with severe to profound hearing impairment. While cochlear implants under the Government of India supported ADIP scheme cost a lot to the public exchequer, parents spend considerable amounts on CI surgery under the self-financed scheme. This study aimed to find and compare outcomes of cochlear implants in children who availed of the ADIP scheme and those who were implanted under a self-financed scheme. The secondary aim was to elicit the views of parents on the challenges their wards faced under the ADIP scheme for cochlear implants. Method:The study focused on twelve children who received cochlear implants under the ADIP scheme and twelve children who received implants under a selffinanced scheme at a tertiary care health centre. The baseline for measurement of various outcomes was a minimum of six months post implantation. Cochlear implant outcomes were compared using MAIS/IT-MAIS, SIR, CAP, and ISD tests. Interviews were also conducted with the parents of children who received cochlear implants under the ADIP scheme, for information regarding the challenges they faced.Results: There was a significant difference (p<.05) between the two groups in the scores of CAP and reception, speech, and cognition subsections of the ISD scale. The scores of the ADIP group were significantly lower in these domains. The possible reasons might be a lack of funds, not visiting the therapy centre regularly, loss of wages during a visit to the therapy centre, lack of family support, and insufficient time to repeat therapy activities at home. There was