BACKGROUND The factors that influence the implant accuracy are the anatomy of the patient, the experience of the practitioner and the surgical approach. However, the relative importance of each factor is poorly understood. Favourable function, occlusion, aesthetics and implant loading patterns can be obtained by optimal positioning. The experience of the surgeon is of utmost importance for the skill of placing a dental implant with proper angulation. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the increased accuracy obtained in performing freehand surgical placement of implants. METHODS This study was conducted in the Department of Implantology. A total of 1216 postoperative periapical radiographs from which single implant placement with adjacent straight root morphology was collected from the department in the period of June 2019 to June 2020 and checked for angulation, practitioner’s experience and the site of placement. Mesio-distal angulation was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS method. RESULTS The results showed accuracy in angulation and positioning of implants increased with an increase in experience of the dental surgeon (oral surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists). Within the limitations of the study, it showed that the freehand dental implant placement angulation was less than a degree for experienced surgeons. The postgraduates had a better understanding and orientation of the angulation than the undergraduates. Moreover, the difficult site was the second and third quadrant to assess the angulation properly. CONCLUSIONS With proper assessment of the anatomy and with experience freehand dental implant placement shows significant results with less angulation which can be prosthetically accepted. KEY WORDS Free Hand Surgery, Guided Surgery, Angulation Of Implants.

The aim of the study is to access the types of arch tracing achieved using tracer in a prosthetic system (BPS). Assessing the relation plays an important role in the fabrication of complete denture. Gothic arch tracing is one of the methods used to achieve relation in complete denture patients. The types of the arrow forms include the classical pointed form, classical flat form, weak form, asymmetrical form, miniature form, vertical line extending beyond the arrow point. The variations in achieving arrow tracing for a complete denture patient depends on mandibular movements. Data collection was done from DIAS (dental hospital management system) which is an electronic record management system and details such as , types of arrow point achieved and type of tracer used was obtained and tabulated. Further the data were by statistical tests (chi-square analysis) using SPSS software (write the version). The typical arrow point tracing was common in both sexes. Females show more variation in tracing arrow types of tracing were more commonly seen in females. The chi-square analysis reveals an insight value of p> 0.005. The typical arrow point tracing form is seen in both males and females. Other forms like atypical, double arrow are commonly seen in females and only miniature forms are seen in males.

BACKGROUND Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory reaction surrounding the hard and soft tissues of the implant that is functional in the patient's mouth. If left untreated, this might lead to further bone loss, loosening of the implant and the ultimate failure of the implant. There are many treatment modalities that have been suggested to treat periimplantitis, but there are no set guidelines or protocols for the same. Implantoplasty seems to be a viable option for treating peri-implantitis, as it involves the smoothening of the macro geometry of the supracrestal exposed implant surface thus reducing the plaque accumulation and ultimately preventing the bacterial recolonization and preventing the implant from failure. This study was done to evaluate the smoothness and the fracture resistance of the implants treated by implantoplasty and as an effective treatment for peri-implantitis. METHODS This in-vitro study was done on 5 failed implants, in which 4 were subjected to a sequence of dental burs and prophy paste and 1 implant was kept as a control. They were subjected to laser topography analysis to determine the smoothness after implantoplasty, and their fracture resistance was also checked in Instron. RESULTS Implant no. 4 subjected to both dental burs and prophy paste was considered to be the smoothest with the laser topography of 2.049 mm compared to the control that was 3.132 mm. Also, the fracture resistance between the implants and the control was similar. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion implantoplasty is a suggested treatment option for patients with periimplantitis keeping in mind the practical difficulties of the procedure. KEY WORDS Peri-Implantitis, Implantoplasty, Dental Burs, Surface Analysis