Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Current Lit Winter 2024 > Study + Results > Flashcards

Study + Results Flashcards

1
Q

Danesh et al

A

Both passed Pharmacology (70 vs 81)
Only 4 passed Perio Etiology (33% vs 75%)
Neither passed Tx Planning (61 vs 69%)

GPT3.5 vs GPT4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Mascardo et al (Tavelli & Barootchi)

A

37 subjects
Patient prevelance: 78.4
Tooth prevelance: 44%
RT1: 30%
RT2: 38%
RT3: 30%
+1mm KT = reduced by 38%
+1mm GT = reduced by 82%
KT and GT correlated with hypersensitivity
Dehicense = increased 2.3x
Presence of recession correlated with:
History of perio treatment
KT
Dehisence
GT 1.5
3d profile
no correlation with age/sex/demographics

“Cross Sectional
Excluded active perio - CBCT/Intraoral scan/Ultrasound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Herz et al

A

Decreased PPD: 22%
Stable: 41%
Increased: 37%
Significant predictors:
Distopalatal furcation, mobility, residual pockets after SRP

116pts 9yr Retro
5yrs+ or SPC
Stage III or IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Zuiderveld

A

96.7% Survival
MBLevel:
t: +0.1
c: -0.6
NSSD in Pink and White aesthetic scores
VAS scores:
t: 9.4
c: 8.7 (but NSSD)

5yr RCT
primary: acess recession
Secondary: BBT, MBL, Aesthetics, Satisfaction
Buccal plate had to be <5mm from FGM
TUBEROSITY GRAFT
4.3mm diameter (no CTG) vs 3.4mm (CTG)
Graft gap (no ctg) vs no graft gap (CTG)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Park et al (Thoma)

A

Complete bone fill in all groups
NSSD in BIC, MBL, fBIC, and CT Thickness!
BIC ~60% in all groups (Albrektsson aggrees)
MBL ~0.2mm in all groups
fBIC ~1.5 in all groups (except Implant noGBR - 1.1)
ALTHOUGH NSSD - Flappless PM (leave provisional matrix) had highest BIC (66%) and Marginal Bone Levels)

6 Mongrel dogs
Mandibular 1st molar extracted
wait 3 weeks then:
Flapless implant
Flapped implant (no GBR)
Flapped implant (w/ GBR)
Control (let heal)
3mo HIstomorphometric analysis”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Wei et al

A

NSSD in Alveolar dimension! both B and L maintained
at 1mm:
t: BW +2.1 LW +4.8
c: BW +2.1 LW +2.0
NSSD in vollume changes
t: gained 640mm^3
c: gained 520mm^3
More KT loss in C

Controlled Clinical Trial
40 pt w/ 40 molars
Molars with severe bone loss due to advanced perio
at least 2 walls had to have 3mm of bone and 1 adjace tooth
some have like NO Wall - they do GBR basically and either leave open or close
Test = open - Control = closed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Toia et al

A

NSSD in MBL - 0.23 vs 0.23
PD: 2.9 in AL vs 3.5 in IL
KMW 1yr and 2yr: AL had less than IL

“2 adjacent missing teeth
< or = 10cig
5yrs
50 pts”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wang et al

A

Tooth-Mucosa supported had MORE deviation???
7.3deg vs 6.9deg
Apicolateral of 1.2mm vs0.86 in mucosa

“Basically, the drill part isnt guided and then theres a part on the drill that fits well into the sleeve (keyless guided)
“

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Takashima

A

82 control and 25 case
Smoking: HR 2.6
-1mm implant length: HR 1.45
Masseter 100mm2 increase: HR 1.6

“Retrospective case control
Control group had no implant failurs
Case group had at least 1
Matched for gender, age, year of surgery, jaw/location, bone graft
“

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Encalada Aba - Mariano Sanz

A

Ancillary bone graft in 17% of SH and 21% LPRF (SSD)
Horizontal changes at 3mm: -2.8mm SH vs -4.6 LPRF (SSD)
Volume change at ROI: 65% SH vs77% LPRF (SSD)
IT MADE IT WORSE! haha

“RCCT
13 vs 14 LPRF
CT + Intra-oral scan immediately after extraction and 4mo later
“

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Lin et al (HOM-LAY WANG)

A

2 single crowns
2 splinted
3 unit bridge
3 single
3 splinted

Incidence of at least 1 implant with bone loss >1mm - platform descrepency didnt really change it (0.5 or >1)
2single: 25%
2splinted: 60%
3 unit: 25%
3 SINGLE: 20%
3 splinted: 70%
OR of bone loss >1mm on adjacent implant overall with all vertical descrepencies included
3unit vs 3 splinted: 6.6
3unit compared to single crowns: 1.7
3 single compared to 3 splinted: 6.7

“Retrospective study
Radiographs after 12mo
2-3 adjacent implants
No cantilevers/short implants <8, no baseline”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Stacchi et al.

A

T0-T1 : more MBL in 2mm subcrestal group
T1-T2: more MBL in 1mm subcrestal group
T0-T2: NSSD between groups

By T2 both had 0.46-0.49mm crestal bone loss

This means 1mm subcrestal had ~0.5mm remaining above the platform, while 2mm subcrestal had ~1.5mm above platform
the extra 1.5 MAY be protective against future pathology

“Multicenter RCT
51pts needing 2 implants
1 placed 1mm the other 2mm
T0 - PLACEMENT
T1 - 4MO CROWN PLACE
T2 - 1YR AFTER CROWN”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Onclin et al

A

Survival:
Patient level:
94.4% (4i)
83.3% (2i)
Implant level:
94.4% (4i)
77.8% (2i)

NSSD in PROMs except Patient Perceived Chewing Ability (better in 4i group)

MBL:
NSSD
0.16mm (4i)
0.03mm (2i)

“RCT 1yr
40pts
20 vs 20
2 implant: canine/lateral location
4 implant: lateral + 1st pre
“

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Starch-Jensen

A

NSSD in ISQ
NSSD in PD, papilla, Plaque, GI
NSSD in MBL
NSSD in PROMs
DID NOT EVALUATE BONE FILL? THIS STUDY IS STUPID

“20 vs 20
1yr folow up
RCT
4.2 or 4.8 x 13mm implants”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Roccuzzo, Salvi, Sculean

A

90% mPSTDcov
58% CompleteCov

Basically - it works and was stable for 10yrs

“Single implant dehisence
envelope flap
TUBEROSITY U SHAPED GRAFT
Keep crown on”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Schwarz et al

A

NSSD in BOP/PI/PD… Wow…
100% survival

Use either the root or a block for vertical/horizontal regeneration

17
Q

Blasi, Monje

A

Terrible reporting
But says 2mmKM had better clinical outcomes and disease resolution
No significant impact on microbial profile

“2 arm prospective
40 vs 40
No KM vs 2mm+ KM
24wks
“

18
Q

Pelekanos et al

A

Deep zone: <15deg, and Straight or concave - should be 1.5mm above the crest (so if placed 0.5mm subcrestal, its 2mm - epicrestal, its 1.5mm)
Trasition Zone Bucco-lingual: Depends on phenotype/need for tissue displacement. Thin - Concave always - thick is Flat if no need to displace tissue, or convex if need to displace
Tranzition Zone M-D: Maintain 1.5-2mm open proximal space! - Limited space= concave - Adequate with no need to augment papilla = straight - need to augment = Convex
Cervical Zone - Thick = convex - Thin - Concave

“AH consists of : Subzenith, and Suprazenith

THIS IS FOR ANATOMICAL HEALERS/TEMPORARY PROSTHESES!”

19
Q

Soardi et al (HOMLAY WANG)

A

ST and B were both impacted by all parameters
Larger M-D, B-L, and Vol made for MORE ST and LESS Bone
Size of sinus did not impat residual graft percentage

Narrow/Short sinuses had lowest amount of soft tissue/residual graft and most bone

“39 patients 51 implants
Took bone core biopsy after 4-5mo
Evaluated impact of:
M-D length of sinus
B-L length of sinus
Volume of sinus
on Soft Tissue, Bone, and Graft %”

20
Q

Da Silva et al

A

3d Analysis
significant improvement at 3mo and 4mo (around 0.4mm)
tissue in black triangle area was 30% at 1mo and 58% at 3mo

“Injected 0.2ml into papilla
evaluated with photos/intra oral scans at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4mo”

21
Q

Cucchi et al

A

after 6-12mo healing
4.2mm gain - no exposures…
ok, so it may work - no comparison…

“12pt prospective
4 smokers
6 perio
50:50 auto:xeno
Custom mesh or dPTFE covered with collagen”

22
Q

Soardi et al (HOMLAY WANG)

A

Residual graft:
12% - 7% - 6%
Bone
19% - 30% - 40%
Soft Tissue
70% - 62% - 53%
Significant difference for soft tissue and bone between 6mo and 12mo

“Crestal window
Porcine apatite xeno from puros used
6-9 and 12mo later core biopsy
24pts 24implants”

23
Q

Hsiao et al

A

Training accuracy was from 95-98%
Testing accuracy decreased but averaged 95% accurage
most accurate was ShuffleNet with 96.8%

Trained a CNN model - Convolutional Neural Network

24
Q

Ghassib et al

A

6.02mm vertical bone gain
Bone fully covered apex of implant

8mo follow up

25
Q

Sabri

A

Patient chief complaint
Esthetics/Inflammation/Symptoms
Fgg only issue - which is esthetics
all address inflammation
Need CRC for reduction of hypersensitivity

LPF cant do multiple recessions
Recession depth - Anything for shallow, burt only LPF for deep (what about lateral closed tunnel by Scullean?)
Narrow anything can do, but wide only TUN and CAG
NO TUN/CAF with <2mm KTW
NO TUN/CAF with Vestibule <3mm
No TUN/CAF with adjacent frenum

“16 case series/retrospective and 5 comparative studies
Evaluated FGG, LPF, TUN, and CAF”

26
Q

Ghishan/Couso-Queiruga

A

Root length - 13mm - 14.6mm (Max 1st pre shortest)
Maxillary premolars > surface area vs Mandibular
Largest total root surface area: Max 1st molar (474mm2)

Furcation entrance:
2.9-3.3 in Max molars
1.6 - 2.4 in mandibular molars
Class III FI expected with >4.6mm CAL in molars, and >10.5mm 1st Premolars

100% concavity prevalence on mesial of 1st premolars - also deeper and wider here (0.56 deep and 2.6 wide)
>90% of mesiobuccal roots and mesial roots of max and mand molars have concavities
widest: outer surface of mesial roots of max 1st molars (3.2mm)

“Posterior teeth only!

Evaluated digitally:
Root length
Root trunk length
Furcation entrance
Furcation Width
Concavity Depth
Concavity Length”

27
Q

Roccuzzo

A

PI:
10yr: 10%
20yr: 33% (SSD)

For mucositis:
Non-compliant perio compromised was 11x greater risk after adjusting
Compliance was protective (OR 0.2)
KM 2+ was protective (0.9)

For Periimplantitis
Compliant Perio Compromised - OR 5.5
Noncompliant PHP - OR 7.3
NonCompliant PCP - 12.8

KT 2+ had an increased risk after adjusting….. OR 1.6….
PCP had less risk than PHP if both noncompliant after adjusting (OR 5 vs 3)

“84pts with 172 implants
attended all follup visits for 10-20yrs
Categorized as healthy or perio compromised
Tissue level implants with no bone augmentation
“

28
Q

Galli et al

A

Extraction sockets
SG group had 1.6x less angular deviation (6 vs 4.6 (CG) vs 3.8 (SG))
CG had less coronal horizontal deviation (0.7mm vs 1.08mm)
Healed sites:
SG had smallest apical global/horizontal and angular deviation
CG had highest all values

Extraction sockets had significantly more deviation

“30 casts with healed and extraction sockets
implants palced in them then deviations calculated”

29
Q

Barausse (Ravida, Saleh, HOMLAY WANG)

A

Failure rate:
Patient level - 2.86%
Implant level - 1.94%
97 and 98% respectively
MBL:
1yr: 0.41
2yr: 0.45
3yr: 0.32
Mean annual MBL was 0.28mm/yr

SSD - less MBL in implants at sites of late failures vs early failures
Failed GBR lead to highest annual MBL
Controlled diabetes had higher severe MBL
Biological complications: 6.79%
BIomechanical complications: 3.88%

“retrospective study
Needed at least 1yr after loading, as well as 3 and 5yrs after
Early regeneration failure (before long implant placed)
Late regeneration failure (after long implant placed)

35 patients 103 short implants
41mo follow up”

30
Q

Alkhouri et al

A

Immediate tended to have more MBL but not significant
91% immediates were grade I PISA consensus success (<2mm MBL)
95% delayed were grade I
More MBL in smokers (1.3mm vs 0.8mm)

“Immediate or delayed placement
69 patients
1yr after loading”

31
Q

Shehabeldine et al

A

Basically - DONT leave it in the socket
is a niche for non-resolving chronic inflammatory cells and unwanted epithelial and CT cells
MAY use it as a socket seal - since it has migrated junctional epithelial cells in it, it can act as a sealing mechanism

32
Q

Magrin et al

A

NSSD in buccal bone height/palatal bone height/cross sectional area/bone ridge thickness
Only significant finding was control group had significant loss of buccal bone height and cross sectional area of ridge

“22pts (about 5 in each)
Sponaneous healing
Collagen Matrix (Mucograft Seal)
Collagen Membrane (BioGuide)
Autogenous Graft (tissue punch)”

33
Q

Abaza et al

A

NSSD in any parameter…

“20pts
Took a block from symphysis and screwed at site
1:1 auto:bovine around it
covered with either pericardium or TiMesh”

34
Q

Yi et al

A

424 patients with 888 implants
Mucositis: ~40% implants and patients
Periimplantitis: 23% implants and 30% patients
Mechanical complications: 50% implants
Most common: screw loosening (47%)
most common fracture: abutment screw (13%)

Multivariate Biologic
Splinted-mid: highest risk of muco(OR 3.1) and peri (OR 3.7)
Crown length influenced mucositis
Emergence >30 on both sides: muco (OR 1.9) peri (OR 1.6)
EP Convex on 1 side: peri (OR 2.3)
EP Convex on 2 sides: peri (OR 4.7)
Hx of Perio: Peri (OR 4.0)

Multivariat Mechanical
No influence of splinted position - but more implants in prosthesis was protective against ALL mechanical complications (OR 0.6)
Molars and males higher risk for loosening + Fracture (OR ~2 for each complication)
Longer crowns (OR ~1.1 for each)

“Retrospective Radiographic
Posterior only
MANY things evaluated
Splinting/nonsplinting
Position in splited prosthesis (m/mid/d)
emergence angle/profile
lenght, diameter, like everything”

35
Q

Huang (Van Dyke)

A

C3b + C4b as biomarkers for periodontitis
C3b - where all pathways converge
C4b - opsinization for phagocytosis

Gingival tissues taken fromdiseased vs non-diseased sites during surgery

Increased expression in tissue w/ increased PD
Increased in expression in GCF w/ increased PD
C3b in tissue - 100% specificity
C4b in tissues - 100% Sensitivity
both in tissues - 93% spec and 82% Sens

C3b in GCF - 97% spec
C4b in GCF - 97% Spec
Both in GCF - 94% spec

Current Lit Winter 2024 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions