Background : It is difficult to achieve good primary stability of dental implants in soft bone, such as that in the posterior maxillae. Osseodensification (OD) burs, working in a non-subtractive fashion, condense the implant osteotomy bone in lateral direction and increase in the bone implant contact. Also, dental implants with deeper threads, and decreased thread pitch can increase initial bone implant anchorage. Methods: This study utilized 48 custom-made machined surface dental implants that were 13 mm long, with a major diameter of 4.5 mm and a minor diameter of 3.5 mm, a thread pitch of 1 mm, a thread depth of 0.5 mm, and a 4 mm long cutting flute at the apex. The implants were divided into 4 groups, each group was made of 12 implants with a different thread design; V-shaped, trapezoid, buttress, and reverse buttress. The implants were inserted in 4-mm thick cancellous bone slices obtained from the head of Cow femur bone. The ostoetomies were prepared by conventional drilling and by OD drilling. Each inserted implant was then tested for primary stability using the Periotest. The Periotest values (PTVs) for the implant stability were tabulated and analyzed using a chi square test at significance level p< 0.05. Results : The results of this this study revealed no statistically significant difference between the Periotest readings for the implants in each category placed in either the OD or the regular osteotomies. However, it has been found that the implants placed in regular drilling ostoetomies had a significantly better primary stability than the implants placed in OD osteotomies. Conclusions : It was concluded that OD is not necessary in situations where there is bone of good quality and quantity.

Alveolar ridge deformities can be caused by several factors. Managing alveolar deformities prior to implant placement is essential to increase bone width, height or both. Several techniques and materials are now available to perform ridge augmentation procedures. The postoperative exposure of the membrane is the most frequent postoperative complications of ridge augmentation procedures. The present case describes the horizontal ridge augmentation procedure and the outcome of surgical attempt to manage post-operative membrane exposure, and shows the unpredictability of managing postoperative membrane exposure surgically.

Objectives: Therapeutic and procedural aspects have been primarily focused on the bone graft treatments with least priority to patients' perception and preferences. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the patient's choices about various bone grafts used in the bone replacement dental treatments. Methods: A self-structured, an anonymous questionnaire with eight items was administered to 100 patients. The questionnaire recorded the responses of selected patients regarding their acceptance and refusal to each type of bone grafts; intraoral and extraoral autograft, allograft, xenograft, and alloplast. The patients' responses were compared with age, gender, and educational level. The descriptive statistical analysis was performed for the collected data, and with P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall acceptance ratio for intraoral autografts, extraoral autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts was 89%, 72%, 46%, 33%, and 87%, respectively. The xenograft (67%) had the highest rate of refusal followed by allografts (54%), extraoral autogenous grafts (28%), alloplast (13%), and intraoral autograft (11%) being the least refused bone graft. Age had no statistically significant influence on the acceptance rate to different types of bone grafts, whereas the gender and educational levels were associated with higher acceptance rates. Conclusions: The xenograft (67%) had the highest rate of refusal, followed by allografts (54%), extraoral autogenous grafts (28%), alloplast (13%), and intraoral autograft (11%) being the least refused bone graft among the surveyed participants. Moreover, age had no statistically significant influence on the acceptance and refusal to different types of bone grafts, whereas the gender and education level was associated with the acceptance and rejection rates.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the golden standard in biomedical research, which makes their reporting to a high quality essential to control RCTs’ internal validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting of RCTs published in periodontic journals and their compliance with the CONSORT guidelines. A hand search was undertaken to identify RCTs published in three periodontic journals [1] Journal of periodontology (JOP) [2], the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) and [3] the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) from 2015 to 2018.The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. Abstracts of 177 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. The distribution of published reports was in the Journal of periodontology (JOP), (42%) the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) (7%) and the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) (51%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 49.0%(95% CI: 47.7–50.2%). Most of the abstracts (91–100%) clearly reported and described the study design as randomized in the RCTs' title and recruitment status, as well as study interventions, objective(s), outcome(s) and conclusions. There was insufficient description and reporting of the authors’ contact details, trial design, method of randomization, blinding, number of analyzed participants per group, harms, trial registration and source of funding. The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the current guidelines of reporting RCTs abstracts, efforts should be made to better reporting.

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Three leading periodontology journals, the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR), were selected for this investigation. The RCTs were identified by manually searching for human trial articles published in these three journals. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, and a pre-piloted extraction sheet was used to screen the potential RCTs. The CONSORT checklist guidelines were employed to calculate the score value. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed by scoring a random sample of 10% of the papers in a second round conducted by the first examiner three months after the initial data collection. A search of abstracts published over a five-year period yielded 176 articles that reported RCTs, accounting for 11.7% of all articles published in the three journals. The highest number of RCTs was published in 2020, and more than half of the included RCTs (51%) originated from Europe. Many of the analyzed RCTs inadequately reported almost half of the items on the CONSORT checklist. Furthermore, univariate analysis revealed significant associations between certain factors and the overall CONSORT score, such as publication in JOP (p = 0.048), publication year of 2019 (p = 0.041) and 2021 (p = 0.042), first author from North America (p = 0.016), and RCTs with more than six authors (p = 0.042). Clinical trial research in periodontics has made significant progress in the past five years. However, there is room for improvement in adhering to the CONSORT guidelines.

Introduction: The intriguing link between periodontal disease severity and physical activity remains largely understudied, particularly in the Saudi Arabian population. Thus, the current research was intended to ascertain the effect of physical activity on the prevalence and indicators of periodontal diseases. Materials: The cross-sectional approach with convenience sampling was applied to the recruitment of 160 adult subjects attending gymnasiums, sports clubs, malls, primary health centres, and community dental health programs. Based on IPAQ scores, the participants were split into two distinct groups: a physically active group and a physically inactive group. The two study groups were compared with one another in terms of recorded parameters. The gathered data subsequently underwent statistical processing using SPSS 20.0. Results: Of the 160 subjects, 66.87% (n = 107) had gingivitis and 33.12% (n = 53) periodontitis. A lower mean PI (1.62±0.31) was observed in the physically active group compared to the physically inactive group (6.91±1.12). The physically active group had a mean BI of 19.01±4.53 and the inactive group 69.98±9.29. For physically active and inactive groups, mean PD measurements were 2.49±0.33 mm and 4.61±0.07 mm, respectively.Physically active individuals had a significantly lower mean CAL (2.98±0.88 mm) compared to the inactive group (5.37±1.02 mm). Parametric variances between groups are statistically significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Insufficient engagement in physical activity has undeniably been identified as a risk factor for the development and severity of periodontal disease, marked by escalated indicators of gingivitis and periodontitis. The study findings unequivocally endorse the adoption of a consistent physical activity regimen as strategic initiatives to proactively address the incidence of inflammatory periodontal diseases. Many patients with different psychophysical characteristics seek periodontal therapy at dental clinics. This study alerts clinicians to the impact of physical inactivity in a wide-spectrum population and helps identify periodontal risk in sedentary patients. It also aids in treatment planning for these periodontally risky, physically inactive people. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.23 (Special Issue) 2024 p.S20-S25