09212022_Teresa_JOP

Question 1

Which study looked at submerged healing of peri-implantitis lesions?
TO WIN AT REGENERATION

Answer 1

JOP
Wen
Prospective clinical study involving submerged healing of infraosseous peri-implantitis defects. Implant supra-structures were removed, a composite bone graft (60% cortical FDBA + 20% BBM + 20% autogenous) added, and nonresorbable membrane added.

Results

• Clinical and radiog. defect fill of ~3.5 mm
• PD reduction of ~ 3mm
• BOP reduction of ~ 60%
  Mnemonic: to “win” (Wen) at regenerating PI defects, submerge it

Question 2

What study looked at periodontitis and lupus patients?

Answer 2

JOP
Bolstad
- Population-based study using Norwegian government data for 10 years (from ‘08 - ‘17).
~2,000 Lupus patients from the Norwegian patient registry were compared to ~150,000 control patients (Excluded osteoporosis fractures because it’s a comorbidity with RA).

• Periodontitis and lupus patients.
  ** Pts with SLE were more likely to undergo periodontitis treatments (6.3% vs 4.8% non-lupus pts).
  ** OR of SLE + Periodontitis: 1.78**

Mnemonic: Periodontitis was “bolstered” (Bolstad) in Norwegians with Lupus. (By a bit less than 2x)

Question 3

What study compared a collagen substitute to sCTG?

Answer 3

JOP
McGuire
RCT study design.
CAF with either sCTG or Volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) for recession coverage & tissue thickness.

Results: 1 Year FU
** Reduction in recession depth and width: both were effective but remaining recession was 2x more
in VCMX (REC W & D = 1.5) vs. sCTG (REC W & D = 0.7)
** Tissue thickness was 2X more in sCTG vs. VCMX (70 vs. 35 mm3)

Mnemonic: “McGuire will hire Shayan (the collagen matrix expert)” because collagen works almost as well as sCTG for recessions

Question 4

What study looked at the accuracy of the Rasperini probes?

Answer 4

JOP
Bertl (Visual vs. standard probe transparency vs. rasperini CCP probe vs. sounding)

RESULTS
- All methods showed high PPV for thick phenotype but also high false omission rate (many cases that were considered thin were actually thick).
- CCP rasperini probe failed to ID ~90% of thin cases (≤ 1 mm).

CONLUSION
CPP was not able to accurately discriminate among the various GT categories and showed low intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility.

Question 5

What study looked at bioactive glass or arginine dentrifices for sensitivity?

Answer 5

JOP
Ongphichetmetha
efficacy of dentine hypersensitivity after SRP (using bioactive glass or arginine dentrifrices)  No real advantage compared to controls

Question 6

Which study compared antibiotic resistance of subG biofilms in healthy, gingivitis, and periodontitis patients?

Answer 6

JOP
Espindola
Antimicrobial susceptibility of Gram-negative bacilli in subG biofilms in Perio disease. Samples were plate cultured,

RESULTS:
no real differences among healthy, gingivitis, perio pts (except that the healthy pts had Ceftriaxone-resistant bacteria)

Mnemonic: if you “spin down” some plaque samples in a centrifuge and culture it, you’ll find no differences except for Ceftriaxone resistance in the healthy group

Question 7

Is infrared light laser therapy (ILLT) effective in tx of Periodontitis in vivo?

Answer 7

Camargo
M&M:
- 8 weeks rat model of ligature PD
- 3 groups: healthy control vs. PD vs. PD + ILLT

Results:
- PD + ILLT –> SSD in CEJ-ABC distance as well as Trabecular thickness, porosity and anisotropy

Question 8

What study looked at GBR with FDBA + Collagen membrane vs. cross-linked collagen scaffold (Ossix volumax)?

Answer 8

Dowlatshahi

M&M: FT flap + cortical perforations then FDBA + CM or Ossix volumax (OV) alone

RESULTS: (9 months PO)
OV (Ossix Volumax) on its own is not an effective bone augmentation material
Probably because Lack of Space maintenance/creation and stability at the augmented sites