JOP Apr - June 2022 Flashcards
Study Zucchelli PISTD classification
Tavelli (Barootchi, Majzoub, Chan, Stefannini, Kripfgans, Wang, Urban)
Prevalence and risk indicators of PISTDs in esthetic zone
Cross sectional with clinical and ultrasound measurements
Risk indicators: (multivariant OR)
Adjacent implant (OR 10.9)
Years in function (OR 1.4)
Buccal bone distance (OR 1.41)
Protective:
KMW (OR 0.73)
MT (OR 0.11)
Buccal bone thickness (OR 0.09)
Most frequent:
Crown longer than homologous natural tooth
Class III/IV
Subclass b/c
Santamaria et al.
CMX vs ADM RCT (6mo follow up)
CMX - COL I and III Bilayer
(poros/ thick layer is for blood stability and tissue integration - Compact layer is for wound protection and suturing)
ADM - Porcine dermis
25pts CMX
25pts ADM
25pts CAF
100% completed the study
NSSD in RecRed or %RC
CRC was 2x greater in CAF and CAF/CMX vs CAF/ADM
No help from substitutes when Rec 3mm+ or when GT was <0.8mm
When KT <2mm - CAF and CAF/CMX had ~1mm more RecRed and 20% more %RC
Substitutes increased GT more than CAF (6mo: 1mm vs 1.4mm vs 1.4mm - consider Barootchi et al!)
Abud et al.
SRP vs Er:YAG/SRP - single blinded RCT
Wavelength of Er:YAG - 2940nm
Corresponds with peak absorption of water
Summary - NSSD in results - Er:YAG shortens treatment time - Er:YAG improves patient reported outcomes - Patients prefer Er:YAG - Decreased post op sensitivity!
26pts
split mouth study
SRP one side then <10days later L-SRP the other
Follow up at 1 and 3mo
NSSD in clincal outcomes
81% of patients prefered L-SRP
92min vs 54min (L-SRP better)
Post op sensitivity SRP vs L-SRP:
VAS 1-10
1mo: 1.9 vs 0.8
3mo: 1.4 vs 0.1
Dortaj et al.
Nd:YAG
Double blind RCT with 6mo follow up
Wavelength: 1064nm
High absorption in hemaglobin and melanin
Stage II-IV perio who have residual pockets after non-surgical
Basically - laser caused recession, which reduced PD, but didnt result in any gain in CAL
NSSD in CAL levels, SSD more GR in Laser group, Smaler PD in laser group
~1mm more recession in test group after 6mo
Majzoub et al.
Multivariant analysis of Results of treatment of furcation involved molars with non-surgical or OFD
Class A/B/C furcation depth - Tonetti 2017 (thirds)
Hamp 1975 (mms)
Retrospective of 158pts
CAL and PDs - Less improvement in Class C and Degree II and III
Rec - OFD more recession - Deeper PDs/Class C/Degree III
More PD reduction in teeth with initial FI and deep PDs
Degree I and Class A/B had most CAL gain and minimal recession
SPT/Degree/Class siginificantly effected survival
Couso-Queiruga (Galindo-Moreno/Avila-Ortiz)
Effect of Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) vs Unassisted Healing (ASH) for Non-molars in preventing anciliary GBR
non molars except mandibular incisors
CBCT and KMW before EXT
CBCT2 at 10-36wks
Socket pres with dPTFE OR Collagen
Facial bone measured on CBCT before EXT
Digitally plan implant at second CBCT
Deemed not feasible if <1mm bone circumfrential around implant
140i (70 vs 70)
ARP group 17.8x less likely to need GBR at implant placement
Every 1mm buccal bone thickness decreased need of GBR during implant by 7.77x
Unassisted: 42/70 needed GBR (60%) - 27/42 (64%) of these were thin phenotype
ARP: 8/70 needed GBR (11%) - 7/8 (88%) were thin phenotype
Dukka et al.
British Society of Periodontology implimentation of WW17 classification
Simplified version
Stage I: >2mm from CEJ on radiograph
Stage II: Coronal 1/3 of root
Stage III: Mid 1/3 of root
Stage IV: Apical 1/3 of root
Grade A: <0.5 BL/Age
Grade B: 0.5-1 BL/Age
Grade C:P >1 BL/Age
270pts 6800 teeth
BSPi - Stage/Grade/Extent all correlated with tooth loss!
WWC - no correlation with tooth loss!
WWC - Stage III and IV Grade C correlated with worse prognosis
Prognostic performance was 0.92 for both
K Agreement (for BSP?)
Stage: 0.79
Grade: 1.0
Extent: 0.57
Sayed et al.
Prognostic value and predictive accuracy of 2017 Workshop’s correlation for tooth loss
10yrs of follow up and maintenance after treatment
82 patients
Patients with 0 teeth lost:
Stage II: 66%
Stage III: 44%
Stage IV: 33%
Increasing stage and higher grade both correlated with increased risk and number of TLP
Stage IV - Highest risk (RR 2.0)
Males: Decreased risk (RR 0.479)
Age/Smoke: Risk factors
Adherence to SPT: Protective factor
