Introduction: Formulation of various preventive and therapeutic strategies is possible only by a better understanding of the immune-inflammatory profile of peri-implant diseases. For understanding the changes and turnover of bone, various markers have been used in the past literature, out of which, N-telopeptide of Type I Collagen (NTx) is acknowledged to be the most reliable marker. Aims and objectives: Assessment of calprotectin and NTx concentration in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) around the implant sites in subjects suffering from peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: In total, 70 healthy individuals were included in the present study. These patients had opted for dental implants within the last decade. After collecting the peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) and GCF, various examinations were carried out. PICF samples were obtained with the help of sterile paper available in the form of strips. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique was used for measuring the calprotectin and NTx. All the readings were obtained in nanograms per microliter of PICF. All the results were recorded and analyzed. Results: The overall mean calprotectin and NTx values were observed to be in a significantly higher range within the sites suffering from peri-implantitis when compared with healthy locations. The calprotectin values and NTx levels were positively correlated with the mean values of periodontal parameters observed clinically. Conclusion: Both calprotectin and NTx could be used as a biomarker signifying the presence of inflammation as well as bone resorption in patients suffering from peri-implantitis.

Background: Comparatively evaluate the accuracy of two different implant impression techniques. Materials & methods: For the present study, reference models used were an edentulous mandibular cast with four implant analogues in the anterior region and a metallic insert in the posterior. Two impression techniques were studied as followed: Group 1: Polyvinyl siloxane impressions (putty and light body) using stock metal tray, and Group 2: Polyether impressions (medium body) using stock metal tray. Connection of the impression posts was done to implant analogues with the screws tightened manually such that their flat surfaces were facing buccally. The longer impression posts were connected to the anterior analogues and shorter were connected to the posterior analogues. A self-calibration test was performed to determine the accuracy obtained by the single evaluator. Results: Mean error among the specimens of Group 1 was 0.0441 while mean error among the specimens of Group 2 was 0.0425 respectively. While comparing the mean error among the two study groups, non-significant results were obtained. Conclusion: From the above results, the authors concluded that both the impression techniques can be used with equal effectiveness in implant procedures.

No abstract