JCP Apr - Jun 2022

Question 1

Cortellini & Tonetti

Answer 1

10yr follow up of RCT
M-MIST vs M-MIST/EMD vs M-MIST/EMD/DBBM
Tooth retention, recurrence, cost

NSSD between groups from 1-10yrs for retention/recurrence
Lower cost for M-MIST alone (no biomaterials)
At 1 year, using DBBM had significantly more bone fill by ~2mm vs MMIST, and 1mm vs MMIST EMD

Funded by EMD
Re-treatments performed as necessary?

Question 2

Park et al (Thoma)

Answer 2

Impact of membrane fixation on ridge volume a nd new bone volume

2 types of collagen membranes (CM1 - porcine peritoneum derived - moldable and rougher/fibrous surface)(CM2 - porcine tendon derived - stiff smooth surface)
Fixed vs Unfixed

Fixation had no impact on volume
**Augmented tissue width AT CREST (0mm)
CM1Fixed: 2.4mm
CM1Unfixed: 2.4mm
CM2Fixed: 2.3mm
CM2Unfixed: 1.5mm

More new bone volume and % in CM1 vs CM2

Rougher surface may improve integration (noted greater tissue integration and fibrous encapsulation)

Question 3

Guglielmi et al (de Sanctis)

Answer 3

Immediate implant + CTG vs Immediate implant alone 6mo RCT

Inclusion - no more than 3mm dehisence and must be anterior

NSSD in vertical bone changes
SSD in horizontal bone changes - favor CTG (-2.09 vs -1.16mm)
Change in Soft tissue volume: 6.7mm^3 vs 0.16mm^3
Change in Soft tissue Thickness:
Measured apico-coronal for 5mm
CTG: 1.33 to 2.42mm
IIP: -0.16 to 0.88mm

Question 4

Pitman et al. (Cosyn)

Answer 4

IIP (24hrs) with immediate (72hrs), early/delayed (6wks+) provisional - systematic review and meta analysis

323 implants in 323 patients reviewed

NSSD in soft tissue or hard tissue changes
BUT - SSD LESS midfacial recession with IP when theres an intact alveoli: 0.87mm
NSSD if non-intact

Low strength of evidence - need more RCT

Question 5

Cosyn et al.

Answer 5

CTG vs CMX for buccal thickness on single implants

Pre-op/Post-op/3mo/12mo
Digital scan/subtraction
Inclusion: at least 5mm KG
Baseline:
CTG: 1.4mm
CMX: 1.9mm
Amount of shrinkage:
Over course of 1yr, CTG had ~0.45mm resorption, CMX had ~1.35mm resorption
90% CTG and only 10% CMX had >0.75mm increased volume at area of interest
MBL: SSD
CTG: 0.66mm
CMX: 1.05mm

At 3mo:
CTG: -0.27mm
CMX: -1.05mm
From 3-12mo
CTG: -0.18
CMX: -0.28

Question 6

Gotfredson (Stavrapolous)

Answer 6

Effcacy/risk of RPD in perio patients - systematic review

2 Retrospectives 5 prospectives
No strong evidence that RPDs increase risk of tooth loss
Increased plaque accumulation
Improved OHRQoL
No significant improvement in masticatory function (chewing time/force/strokes/etc) or nutritional status vs short dental arch

Question 7

Ying-Shan Yu

Answer 7

Association between Periodontitis and Tinnitis - population based cohort study in Taiwan

Retrospective matched cohort - looked at National health insurance research database
Matched age/sex/follow-up

G1: 11,000 Perio patients that received treatment
G2: 11,000 Perio patients w/ no treatment
G3: 11,000 non-perio patients

G1: 412 w/ Tinnitus (aHR: 1.71)
G2: 404 w/ Tinnitus (aHR: 1.64)
G3: 321 w/ Tinnitus

Earlier onset in G1 and G2
Significantly more in G1 and G2
NSSD between G1 and G2

Its associated! - but, didnt control for smoking/systemic issues… more investigation needed