Current Issue : October - December Volume : 2020 Issue Number : 4 Articles : 5 Articles
Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater\nstability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond\nfailure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the number of bond failures\nand type of failure pattern between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded retainers.\nMethods: Total 60 subjects were recruited initially and were assessed for eligibility, out of which 6 were excluded\nand 2 were lost to follow up. They were randomly divided into two groups. Fiber reinforced composite (FRC)\nretainers were inserted in group 1 subjects while group 2 subjects received multistranded stainless steel (MSW)\nretainers. The subjects were recalled after every 3 months over a period of 1 year. Bond failure rate and failure\npattern based on adhesive remnant index were evaluated at each visit. The bond failure rate and failure pattern\nwere compared between the two retainers by using Chi-square test...................
The aim of this prospective clinical study was to investigate differences between virtually planned and\nclinically achieved implant positions in completely template-guided implant placements as a function of the tooth\narea, the use of alveolar ridge preservation, the implant length and diameter, and the primary implant stability.\nMethods: The accuracy of 48 implants was analyzed. The implants were placed in a completely template-guided\nmanner. The data of the planned implant positions were superimposed on the actual clinical implant positions,\nfollowed by measurements of the 3D deviations in terms of the coronal (dc) and apical distance (da), height (h),\nangulation (ang), and statistical analysis.....................
Preliminary canal enlargement (glide path preparation) may play a significant role in the development of\npain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized clinical trials was to assess the influence of glide path kinematics\nduring endodontic treatment on the occurrence and intensity of intraoperative and postoperative pain.\nMethods: A search was performed in June 2019 in six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Embase\nand Web of Science) and two grey literature databases (OpenGrey and OpenThesis). The bibliographic references of\nthe eligible articles were also hand-searched. The included clinical studies assessed the occurrence and intensity of\nintraoperative and/or postoperative pain after root canal preparation without glide path preparation (WGP) or with\nglide path preparation using manual (M-GP), continuous rotary (CR-GP), or reciprocating (R-GP) instruments. The\nprimary outcome was the occurrence and intensity of intraoperative and postoperative pain, while analgesic\nconsumption was the secondary outcome. The full texts of the eligible studies were analyzed by two reviewers who\nperformed calibration exercises to verify the risk of bias and quality of the individual studies using the Joanna Briggs\nInstitute Critical Appraisal tool.\nResults: From 1283 identified articles, only six studies were included in the qualitative analysis of the results, with a\ntotal sample of 884 patients/teeth. Three studies presented a high risk of bias, while three studies presented a\nmoderate risk. Two studies reported that CR-GP causes lower pain levels than M-GP and WGP, and three studies\nshowed no differences between CR-GP and R-GP. Regarding analgesic consumption, two studies found no differences\namong glide path kinematics, and one study reported lower consumption for CR-GP than for M-GP. Because of the\nlimited number of studies and methodological differences, no statistical analyses were performed for the glide path\nkinematics comparisons.\nCompelling evidence indicating a significantly different occurrence and intensity of pain among glide\npath kinematics is lacking.\nThe systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database [CRD42020139989]....
Facial esthetics is a major concern of orthodontic patients. This study aims to evaluate orthodontic\ntreatment-related thickness changes of the masseter muscles and surrounding soft tissues and the potential factors\nthat would influence these changes during orthodontic treatment in female adults.\nMethods: Forty-two female adult patients were included in this retrospective study and were divided into\nextraction (n = 22) and nonextraction (n = 20) groups. Pretreatment and posttreatment cone-beam computed\ntomography (CBCT) images were superimposed and reconstructed. The thickness changes of the masseter area of\nfacial soft tissue (MAS), masseter muscles (MM) and surrounding fat tissue (FT) were measured. Pretreatment age,\ntreatment duration, sagittal relationship (ANB), and vertical relationship (Frankfort-mandibular plane angle, FMA)-\nrelated MAS, MM and FT changes were compared between extraction and nonextraction groups. Spearmanâ??s\ncorrelation coefficient was calculated between the above variables. Regression analysis was conducted to confirm\nthe causal relations of the variables.\nResults: The thickness of MAS and MM significantly decreased in both groups, with larger decreases......................
Background: Mechanical plaque removal has been commonly accepted to be the basis for periodontal treatment.\nThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different initial\nprobing pocket depths (PPD) in periodontal treatment.\nMethods: English-language databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medline,\nand ClinicalTrials.gov, by January, 2019) were searched. Weighted mean differences in primary outcomes, PPD and\nclinical attachment loss (CAL) reduction, were estimated by random effects model. Secondary outcomes, bleeding\non probing (BOP), gingival recession (GR), and post-scaling residual dental calculus, were analyzed by comparing\nthe results of each study. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The\nGRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence.\nTen randomized controlled trials were included out of 1434 identified. Initial PPD and follow-up periods\nformed subgroups. For 3-months follow-up: (1) too few shallow initial pocket studies available to draw a conclusion;\n(2) the heterogeneity of medium depth studies was so high that could not be merged to draw a conclusion; (3)\ndeep pocket studies showed no statistical differences in PPD and CAL reduction between ultrasonic and manual\ngroups. For 6-months follow-up: (1) too few shallow initial PPD studies to draw a conclusion; (2) at medium pocket\ndepth, PPD reduction showed manual subgingival scaling better than ultrasound. No statistical differences were\nobserved in CAL reduction between the two approaches; (3) for deep initial PPD studies, both PPD and CAL\nreduction showed manual subgingival scaling better. GR results indicated no statistical differences at medium and\ndeep initial pocket studies between the two methods. BOP results showed more reduction at deep pocket depths\nwith manual subgingival scaling. No conclusion could be drawn about residual dental calculus.\nConclusion: When initial PPD was 4-6 mm, PPD reduction proved manual subgingival scaling.......................
Loading....