Study + Results Flashcards
(35 cards)
Danesh et al
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
Mascardo et al (Tavelli & Barootchi)
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
Herz et al
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
Zuiderveld
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)
Park et al (Thoma)
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”
Wei et al
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
Toia et al
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”
Wang et al
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)
“
Takashima
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
“
Encalada Aba - Mariano Sanz
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
“
Lin et al (HOM-LAY WANG)
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”
Stacchi et al.
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”
Onclin et al
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
“
Starch-Jensen
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”
Roccuzzo, Salvi, Sculean
90% mPSTDcov
58% CompleteCov
Basically - it works and was stable for 10yrs
“Single implant dehisence
envelope flap
TUBEROSITY U SHAPED GRAFT
Keep crown on”
Schwarz et al
NSSD in BOP/PI/PD… Wow…
100% survival
Use either the root or a block for vertical/horizontal regeneration
Blasi, Monje
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
“
Pelekanos et al
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!”
Soardi et al (HOMLAY WANG)
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 %”
Da Silva et al
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”
Cucchi et al
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”
Soardi et al (HOMLAY WANG)
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”
Hsiao et al
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
Ghassib et al
6.02mm vertical bone gain
Bone fully covered apex of implant
8mo follow up
