PURPOSE: This retrospective study aims at the evaluation of implant-supported overdentures (IODs) supported by ceramo-galvanic double crowns (CGDCs: zirconia primary crowns + galvano-formed secondary crown). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a private practice, 14 patients were restored with 18 IODs (mandible: 11, maxilla: 7) retained by CGDCs on 4 - 8 implants and annually evaluated for technical and/or biological failures/complications. RESULTS: One of the 86 inserted implants failed during the healing period (cumulative survival rate (CSR) implants: 98.8%). During the prosthetic functional period (mean: 5.9 +/- 2.2 years), 1 implant demonstrated an abutment fracture (CSR-abutments: 98.2%), and one case of peri-implantitis was detected. All IODs remained in function (CSR-denture: 100%). A total of 15 technical complications required interventions to maintain function (technical complication rate: 0.178 treatments/patients/year). CONCLUSION: Considering the small sample size, the use of CGDCs for the attachment of IODs is possible without an increased risk of technical complications. However, for a final evaluation, results from a larger cohort are required.
Cohort Studies ; Crowns* ; Denture, Overlay* ; Humans ; Maxilla ; Peri-Implantitis ; Private Practice ; Retrospective Studies ; Sample Size ; Survival Rate

Purpose: This practice-based cross-sectional study aimed to investigate whether common risk indicators for peri-implant diseases were associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients undergoing supportive implant therapy (SIT) at least 5 years after implant restoration. Methods: Patients exclusively restored with a single implant type were included. Probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration, and radiographic bone loss (RBL) were assessed around implants. The case definitions were as follows: peri-implant mucositis: PPD ≥4 mm, BOP, no RBL; and peri-implantitis: PPD ≥5 mm, BOP, RBL ≥3.5 mm. Possible risk indicators were compared between patients with and without mucositis and peri-implantitis using the Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as well as a multiple logistic regression model for variables showing significance (P<0.05). Results: Eighty-four patients with 169 implants (observational period: 5.8±0.86 years) were included. A patient-based prevalence of 52% for peri-implant mucositis and 18% for peri-implantitis was detected. The presence of 3 or more implants (odds ratio [OR], 4.43; 95 confidence interval [CI], 1.36–15.05; P=0.0136) was significantly associated with an increased risk for mucositis. Smoking was significantly associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 5.89; 95% CI, 1.27–24.58; P=0.0231), while the presence of keratinized mucosa around implants was associated with a lower risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.25; P<0.001). Conclusions The number of implants should be considered in strategies to prevent mucositis. Furthermore, smoking and the absence of keratinized mucosa were the strongest risk indicators for peri-implantitis in patients undergoing SIT in the present study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate whether salivary findings of active matrix-metalloproteinase 8 (aMMP-8) chairside (point of care; POC) tests were associated with periodontal risk assessment parameters in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). METHODS: A total of 125 patients receiving regular SPT were included, and their records were examined. The following inclusion criteria were used: a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, at least 1 non-surgical periodontal treatment (scaling and root planning) with following regular SPT (minimum once a year), at least 6 remaining teeth, and clinical and aMMP-8 findings that were obtained at the same appointment. In addition to anamnestic factors (e.g., smoking and diabetes), oral hygiene indices (modified sulcus bleeding index [mSBI] and approximal plaque index), periodontal probing depth simultaneously with bleeding on probing, and dental findings (number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth) were recorded. Salivary aMMP-8 levels were tested using a commercial POC test system (Periomarker, Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany). Statistical analysis was performed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and χ2 test, as appropriate (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Only the mSBI was significantly associated with positive salivary aMMP-8 findings (aMMP-8 positive: 27.8%±20.9% vs. aMMP-8 negative: 18.0%±14.5%; P = 0.017). No significant associations were found between aMMP-8 and smoking, diabetes, periodontal parameters, or parameters related to the maintenance interval (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Salivary aMMP-8 chairside findings were not associated with common parameters used for periodontal risk assessment in patients receiving SPT. The diagnostic benefit of POC salivary aMMP-8 testing in risk assessment and maintenance interval adjustment during SPT remains unclear.
Chronic Periodontitis ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Diagnosis ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Oral Hygiene Index ; Periodontitis ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Tooth

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different caries-preventing agents on artificial caries in a Streptococcus mutans-based caries model. METHODS: Sixty-five caries-free human molar enamel blocks were treated with a demineralization solution and a remineralization solution. The specimens were assigned to the following groups according to the caries-protective product applied: group A, chlorhexidine varnish; group B, fluoride-releasing chemically cured sealant; group C, fluoride-releasing lightcured sealant; group D, positive control (specimens that were subjected to de- and remineralization cycles without treatment with any caries-protective agents); and group E, negative control (specimens that were not subjected to de- and remineralization cycles). Samples in groups A–D were stored in demineralization solution with S. mutans and thereafter in artificial saliva. This procedure was performed for 30 days. Average fluorescence loss (ΔF) and surface size of the lesions were measured using quantitative light-induced fluorescence at baseline and on the 7th, 14th, and 30th days. RESULTS: After 30 days, group A demonstrated a significant increase in ΔF and the surface size of the lesions, no significant difference in comparison with the positive control group, and a significant difference in comparison with the negative control group. Group B showed no significant changes in both parameters at any of the measurement points. While group C showed increased ΔF after 14 days, no significant fluorescence change was observed after 30 days. CONCLUSIONS Both fluoride-releasing sealants (chemically or light-cured) show anti-cariogenic effects, but the use of chlorhexidine varnish for the purpose of caries protection needs to be reconsidered.