JCP

Question 1

Antezack et al.

Answer 1

DH reduction is associated with RC% and RecRed

Do the RC procedures reduce the incidence of DH associated with gingival recessions? Systematic review and meta

All surgical interventions
701 patients and 1000 GRs
6-12mo follow up

Meta: 70% reduction in hypersensitivity

DH reduction is associated with RC% and RecRed
CAF/CTG > CAF/XCM (73% vs 61%)
NSSD with CAF vs CAF XCM or CAF vs CAF CTG

Question 2

Peric et al

Answer 2

Treatment of gingivitis associated with decrease in cRP and OHRQoL (RCT)

FMBleeding >30%
FMPlaque >50%
70pts vs 70pts

Control - scaling with NO OHI
Test - scaling WITH OHI
28 days total - must be reversible?…. but Page was 21days

Pockets reduced in both
Full Mouth Plaque Score: 80% to 9% vs 80% to 72%
Bleeding score: 47% decrease in test, 5% decrease in control!
Gingivitis resolution (<10%): 88% vs 7%

SS Decrease in CRP and IL-6 in test group
OR of having this happen:
FMBS 8% or less = OR 12.99
Being in test group: OR 2.15
BMI : 0.87

Question 3

Barootchi et al. (Tavelli/Ricardo/Shedden/Oh/Rasperini/Neiva)

Answer 3

Soft tissue modification predicts gingival margin stability long term (>10yrs)

Longitudinal analysis of 6 RCTs
CAF/CAFCTG/CAFADM/TunCTG/TunADM/GTR
83pts - 157 sites

Tooth site was a dominant variant
Technique used was a weak variant

GT at 6mo of 1.46mm correlated with less than 0.5mm variation after 10yrs
WHEN ADJUSTED FOR 6mo GT, KTW HAD NO ASSOCIATION WITH RECESSION
WHEN EXCLUDING GT FROM THE MODEL, KTW PREDICTED GINGIVAL MARGIN IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO GT

Need 1.5mm GT and 1.5mm KTW at 6mo

Question 4

Santana

Answer 4

Adjunctive use of probiotics for periimplant mucositis
Randomized/Placebo

mSBI used (mombelli scale)

mSBI, PD, BOP, mPI
Debridement and then probiotic (lactobacilius)
Baseline, 12, 24wks

SS more cases of restored periimplant health
SS Lower mSBI in test group
SS Lower BOP in test group
SS Lower IL1b, IL6, IL8 vs baseline

NSSD in mPI or PDs

Question 4

Martins

Answer 4

Different techniques to seal the alveolus during ridge prez - network meta analysis

RCTs comparing bone grafts w/ different sealing approaches
22 studies included

1. Open healing following grafting with barrier membranes (OHB)
2. without them (OHNB)
3. Spontaneous healing (SH),
4. primary closure (PC) (with flaps and soft tissue or substitutes, collagen) 🡪 sutured to socket margins

many were BG vs nothing - so had to do network meta
In the ARP groups: Flap advancement, open healing with barrier were significantly superior to spontaneous healing
In spontaneous healing groups: NSSD between intervention groups (non-spontaneous approaches)

Flap advancement vs OHB: less ridge resorption vs SH (1.1 and 1.1mm wider ridges)
OHNB NSSD vs SH
OHB vs FA difference was 0.46mm
so - leave it open!
Primary closure determined to be the best but very small difference (0.46mm)

Question 5

Wang et al (Xuzhu Wang…. Tonetti)

Answer 5

L-PRF vs unassisted healing for non-molar sockets
RCT

unassisted healing vs L-PRF
Primary: ridge resorption 1mm below crest
Secondary: Chg in cytokine/GF in wound fluid/Need for GBR…

RESULTS
NSSD in ridge resorption at any level
NSSD in need for GBR
SS increase GF in wound fluid but no clinical impact

Question 6

Baumeister et al. (Kocher)

Answer 6

Cannibus and Perio -

Reviewed literature and weighted results

17000 cannibis use disorder patients
17000 perio patients

No significant impact