Frequently, periodontal health and it’s associated oral biofilm has not been addressed in those patients who have systemic health issues, especially those who are not responding to medical treatment via their physician. Oral biofilm may be present in the periodontal sulcus in the absence of clinical disease of periodontal disease (bleeding on probing, gingival inflammation) and periodontal reaction is dependent on the patient’s immune response to the associated bacterial and their byproducts. Increasing evidence has been emerging the past decade connecting oral biofilm with systemic conditions, either initiating them or complicating those medical conditions. The patient’s health needs to be thought of as a whole-body system with connections that may originate in the oral cavity and have distant affects throughout the body. To maximize total health, a coordination in healthcare needs to be a symbiosis between the physician and dentist to eliminate the oral biofilm and aid in prevention of systemic disease or minimize those effects to improve the patient’s overall health and quality of life. Various areas of systemic health have been associated with the bacteria and their byproducts in the oral biofilm. Those include cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, pulmonary disease, prostate cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, pre-term pregnancy, erectile dysfunction Alzheimer’s disease and Rheumatoid arthritis. This article will discuss oral biofilm, its affects systemically and review the medical conditions associated with the oral systemic connection with an extensive review of the literature.

The severely atrophic maxilla can present with some challenges during treatment planning with communication between those performing the surgical and prosthetic aspects of the treatment as well as communication with the patient as to what is being suggested for treatment. This article simplifies the communication and understanding of treating the severely atrophic maxilla and based on the Bedrossian classification gives a guideline for the surgical approach to be adapted based on the patient residual anatomy.

The aim of this study was to compare a second-generation bioactive glass putty biomaterial against platelet rich fibrin in treating grade II furcation defects. Subjects were 15 systemically healthy patients (10 males and 5 females, ages 20–50 with a mean age of 38.33) with 20 mandibular molar class II furcation defects according to Glickman's classification. The 20 mandibular molar furcation defects were randomly allocated as follows: Group I, 10 furcation defects were treated using bioactive glass (NovaBone) bone graft putty material; Group II, 10 furcation defects were treated using platelet rich fibrin (PRF). Customized acrylic stents were fabricated on study casts and trimmed to the height contour of the teeth to serve as a fixed reference point for measurements. The following measurements were collected: gingival index, plaque index, vertical probing depth (from gingival margin to base of the pocket), clinical attachment level (CEJ to the base of the pocket), and horizontal probing depth of furcation involvement (using stent). Results showed that both groups had improvement in gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI) at the recall intervals. There was an overall reduction in both vertical and horizontal probing depth in both groups; however, the Putty group (Group I) showed consistently more vertical probing depth reduction than the PRF group (Group II) at the end of third month (P-value = 0.0004), sixth month (P-value = 0.00001), and ninth month (P-value = 0.0004). Our conclusion was that use of bioactive glass osteostimulative biomaterial yields superior clinical results, including increased pocket depth reduction of class II furcation defects as compared to an autologous platelet concentrate. The clinical significance of our findings include the ease of use and superior biologic performance of second-generation putty bioglass biomaterials in furcation defects.

Alveolar bone loss occurs after extraction with loss of a premolar or anterior tooth; the residual supporting alveolar bone loss averages 1.53 mm of crestal bone height and 3.87 mm of buccolingual width, with most of the bone loss occurring at the facial plate. Socket preservation does not completely preserve the original ridge contours but can be an effective means of reducing bone loss following extraction. Attempts to rebuild the alveolar ridge structure after tooth loss often employ the concept of guided bone regeneration, a technique-sensitive procedure that routinely involves placement of particulate bone with or without fixation screws and either a resorbable or a nonresorbable membrane. We present a novel technique for stabilizing a resorbable membrane and underlying particulate graft allowing for predictable bone grafting across multiple edentulous sites.

Low maxillary bone density associated with physiological bone remodeling and resorption accelerated by the presence or history of periodontal disease can prevent implant placement without either ridge and/or sinus augmentation in atrophic maxillary edentulous cases. As an alternative to avoid bone grafting and provide immediacy in restorative treatment care for the patient, remote anchorages to the basal bones of the maxilla of the patient are being used with zygomatic or pterygoid implants. The trans-sinus implant, when indicated can offer a reliable alternative to the zygomatic dental implant in that treatment of the severely edentulous maxilla. This approach is suggested in Bedrossian zones I and II atrophy and when an ‘L’ (or concave) anterior sinus wall anatomy is present. This approach will be discussed utilizing two case examples on how trans-sinus implants may be considered in treating the maxillary arch.