Journal of Osseointegration

Use of diode laser for volume reduction of edematous gingival tissue treated with causal therapy: evaluation of clinical efficacy

2024-07-31T13:46:53+00:00

Aim The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two different techniques for the treatment of plaque-induced gingivitis, specifically investigating whether laser-assisted causal therapy resolves gingival edema more quickly than traditional causal therapy alone.

Materials and Methods This study involved 34 patients aged between 20 and 60 years. Initially, all patients underwent a PSR to exclude those with periodontitis. Clinical parameters were recorded, and a baseline scan was performed. Patients rinsed with 0.20% CHX before receiving a professional oral hygiene session. A split-mouth protocol was used, with each patient receiving both experimental therapy (causal therapy plus diode laser) and control therapy (traditional causal therapy) on different hemi-arches, determined by randomization. Patients were instructed on proper oral hygiene techniques to perform at home. Follow-up scans and clinical assessments were conducted at 7- and 14-days post-treatment. The data were analyzed in a double-blind manner.

Results Analysis of gingival-periodontal health parameters and the volumetric values of treated areas revealed no statistically significant differences between the regions treated with diode laser adjunctive therapy and those treated with traditional causal therapy alone.

Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, diode laser therapy does not appear to facilitate a faster resolution of gingival edema caused by gingivitis compared to traditional therapy. Both treatment methods effectively reduced inflammation, but the addition of diode laser did not significantly enhance outcomes.

A randomized clinical trial in “All on four” rehabilitations with 6-years follow-up: digital versus traditional workflow

2024-07-31T13:20:32+00:00

Aim The present study compares and evaluates the “All on Four” type rehabilitations obtained through a traditional technique, with “All on Four” rehabilitations made using an entirely digital method, with a 6-years follow-up.

Materials and methods The workflow displayed in this study analyzes in detail each design and clinical phase of both methods, which were applied to a total of 50 patients recruited by the Department of Dentistry of the University Vita e Salute San Raffaele. The selected patients were divided into two randomized groups of 25 people: in total, 100 implants were placed in 25 patients who received a full-arch rehabilitation performed using the traditional All on Four method and 100 implants in 25 patients who received a full-arch rehabilitation performed using a digital method. After 6 years, different percentages of success were obtained: 98% of success for the group of patients treated with the traditional "All on Four" protocol and 100% of success for the group treated with the digital protocol. At each time interval a significant difference (P <0.0001) in peri-implant crestal bone loss between the two groups was detected, with an average Marginal Bone Level (MBL) at 6 years of 1.12 ± 0.25 mm in patients treated with traditional method and 0.88 ± 0.10 mm in patients treated with digital method. Patients belonging to the digital group have judged the immediate loading (92%), digital smile preview (93%), the mock-up test (98%) and guided surgery (94%) as very effective. All patients treated with a digital method reported a lower value of during-surgery and post-surgery pain compared to patients rehabilitated using traditional method.

Conclusion The totally digital protocol described in the present study represents a valid therapeutic alternative to the traditional “All on Four” protocol for implant-supported rehabilitations of edentulous dental arches.

Efficacy on cleansing post space root canal walls after Hydraulic Endo-dontic Sealers were used

2024-07-29T13:04:44+00:00

Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy on the cleansing of root walls from several hydraulic endodontic sealers , of smear layer, of the debris, and gutta-percha after the preparation of the restorative space. Methods: Xxx single rooted have been collected. All the samples were prepared by the same operator (DIKP), using Nickel-titanium rotating instruments (MTwo) through the Simultaneous Shaping Technique. The Continuous-wave of condensation technique of obturation was used in combination with the tested hydraulic endodontic sealers. To all specimens, the restorative space has been made, leaving 5 mm of apical gutta-percha and performed postoperative periapical X-Rays. The samples were randomly divided into 4 groups: Group A: traditional endodonti sealer; Group B): Experimental GC hydraulic sealer; Group C: OneFill hydraulic sealer; Group 4: Ceraseal hydraulic sealer. Accortdingly with the used cleansing procedure, the 4 Groups were subdivided in 3 SubGroups: A: no cleansing after preparation of root canal space; B: Cleansing with EDTA 17%; C: Cleansing with ETDA 17% ultrasonic activated. All dental sample groups were cut longitudinally with a low-speed saw (Isomet); the samples were observed using a scanning electron microscope (Jeol, Jsm-6060LV) to evaluate: 1. Amount of debris/ smear layer, 2. Amount of obstruction of dentinal tubules found in the groups, 3. Evaluation of the presence of hydraulic endodontic sealer. Statistical analysis was performed by Mann-Whitney non-parametric comparison test. Results: The SEM observations showed that to clean the root canal wall from hydraulic sealer EDTA 17% activated with ultrasonic device are needed. The traditional sealer was statistically significant better cleaned from root canal walls than hydraulic sealers. Conclusions: The hydraulic endodontic sealers are cleaned with more difficulty than traditional endodontic sealer.

Clinical significance: The hydraulic endodontic sealers can be an obstacle to adhesive reconstruction of endodontically treated teeth.

Accuracy and efficiency of guided veneer preparation: a narrative systematic review

2024-07-25T07:37:47+00:00

Aim The aim of the present study is to investigate the studies published related to precision and efficiency of digital versus conventional guided veneer preparation for optimal preservation of the enamel.

Materials and Methods Medline-PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were analyzed in order to identify randomized controlled trials. Evaluating the outcomes of guided veneer preparation, manual research was performed as well.

Results A database search produced 1624 records. After removal of duplicates and meticulous examination of titles and abstracts, three papers were included in this systematic review once the reviewers discovered them.

Conclusions According to available data regarding the guided veneer preparation, it can be considered a conservative treatment for optimal enamel preservation, which does not need a cautionary selection of cases and a skilled dentist. Guided veneer preparation can be enhanced by using additive manufacturing technology. The study concludes that further randomized control trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of guided veneer preparation. In addition, controlled clinical research is necessary to clearly identify predictable clinical protocols and evaluate the long-term outcomes of such guided preparation.