The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence on associations between diabetes mellitus (DM) and complications around dental implants. Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the PROSPERO register were performed from 1990 up to and including May 2018, using MeSH terms and other keywords. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the associations of DM and implant complications (failure, survival, bone loss, peri-implant diseases, and post-surgery infection) were eligible. The quality of the included reviews was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool 2 (AMSTAR 2). Twelve systematic reviews were included. Implant survival rates ranged from 83.5% to 100%, while implant failure rates varied from 0% to 14.3% for subjects with DM. The three meta-analyses performed for event “implant failure” reported no statistically significant differences between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. An apparently increased risk of peri-implantitis is reported in patients with DM. According to the AMSTAR 2 classification, 50% of the reviews were classified as being of “critically low”, 25% as of “low” and 25% as of “moderate” quality. Evidence indicates high levels of survival and low levels of failure of implants inserted in patients with DM. However, DM was assessed as a whole in the majority of studies and, the actual influence of hyperglycemia on implant survival/failure is still uncertain. DM/hyperglycemia seems to be associated with a high risk of peri-implantitis. However, this conclusion is based on a limited number of systematic reviews.

Primary stability is an important factor for dental implant success. In the past years, a new method for bone site preparation was introduced, named osseodensification (OD). OD produces a condensation of the trabecular portion of the bone, increasing bone-to-implant contact and primary stability. This study aims to compare the effect of OD in cylindrical and conical implants to conventional instrumentation. A total of forty implants, divided into four groups, were placed in porcine tibia: cylindrical conventional (1a), cylindrical OD (1b), conical conventional (2a) and conical OD (2b). Each implant was measured for implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertion torque (IT) and removal torque (RT). Group 2b showed the higher values for each of the evaluated parameters; groups 1b and 2b showed better results than 1a and 2a, respectively. Regarding the IT and RT, group 1b achieved higher values than group 2a, but not for ISQ. The inter-group comparison showed significant difference between groups 1a vs 2a, 1a vs 2b and 1b vs 2b for ISQ and 1a vs 1b and 1a vs 2b for RT analysis. OD resulted in improved ISQ, IT and RT of both cylindrical and conical implants.

Background: The association of scaling and root planing (SRP) with systemic metronidazole (MTZ) plus amoxicillin (AMX) has shown to be an effective treatment protocol, particularly for periodontitis stages III and IV, generalized. More recently, probiotics have also been suggested as a promising adjunctive treatment for periodontal diseases due to their antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Therefore, the aim of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to evaluate the clinical, microbiological, and immunological effects of probiotics as adjuncts to SRP alone or with MTZ+AMX in the treatment of periodontitis. Methods: Subjects with periodontitis are being randomly assigned to receive (i) SRP alone, or with (ii) two probiotic lozenges/day for 90 days (Prob), (iii) MTZ (400 mg) and AMX (500 mg) thrice a day (TID) for 14 days (MTZ+AMX), or (iv) Prob and MTZ+AMX. Subjects are being monitored for up to 12 months post-treatment. Nine subgingival plaque samples per patient are being collected at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-therapy and analyzed by checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization for 40 bacterial species. Peripheral blood and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) of four randomly selected periodontal sites will be analyzed by means of a multiplex fluorescent bead-based immunoassay for 17 cyto/chemokines. Statistical analyses: The significance of differences in each group (over the course of the study) will be sought using repeated measures ANOVA or Friedman tests and among groups (at each time point) using either ANOVA/ANCOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on normality of the data. The chi-square test will be used to compare differences in the frequency of subjects achieving the clinical endpoint for treatment (≤ 4 sites with PD ≥ 5 mm) at 1 year and of self-perceived adverse effects. A stepwise forward logistic regression analysis will be performed in order to investigate the impact of different predictor variables on the percentage of patients achieving the clinical endpoint for treatment. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) with different treatment protocols will be also calculated. Statistical significance will be set at 5%. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03733379. Registered on November 7, 2018.

Background. With advancements in orthodontic technology, treatment durations have shortened, often concluding at earlier ages. This shift prompts scrutiny of contemporary retention and post-treatment protocols. The study aimed to assess current professional preferences, compare them against patient age and treatment duration, and investigate the potential impacts of reduced treatment times on professional protocols, particularly when treatment concludes before pubertal growth. Methods. A questionnaire comprising 12 multiple-choice questions focused on active treatment and retention phases was developed using an online survey platform. It was distributed to licensed orthodontists engaged in patient treatment. Bivariate analysis was conducted using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test, with pairwise comparisons facilitated by the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner method. Results. Of 743 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, approximately 70% reported initiating treatment with fixed appliances in pre-pubertal patients. The most prevalent treatment combination involved commencing treatment during early permanent dentition and lasting between 12 to 24 months, resulting in treatment completion before full growth maturation. No discernible individualization was observed in retention protocols or post-retention follow-ups. Traditional retainer prescription post-orthodontic therapy was unanimous among respondents. Notably, experienced orthodontists tended to prefer regular patient visits for follow-up, while less experienced counterparts discharged patients after 12 months. Conclusion. Contemporary orthodontic treatments are characterized by shorter durations, yet orthodontists have not adopted retention and post-treatment follow-up practices accordingly. There is a pressing need for evidence-based guidelines to develop protocols tailored to the shorter treatment durations and the increasing prevalence of younger patients completing treatment.

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is known for its biostimulant properties, which can reduce inflammation and promote tissue regeneration. The present study is randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled and aims to investigate the role of LLLT in the postoperative recovery of facial fractures. Patients with fractures of the zygomatic bone are selected and divided into two groups: low-level laser and red placebo light. The patients are evaluated for bite force, pain, mouth opening, and paresthesia in the pre-operatory day, on days 1, 2, 7, and 14. The trismus data demonstrated better results in the laser with a significant difference in the periods 7 and 14 days, with p-values of 0.0442 and 0.026, respectively. Regarding the bite force analyzed, no statistically significant differences were observed. In the pain scale comparison, there was a difference between the PLACEBO group and the LASER group for day 1 (p = 0.011), day 2 (p = 0.001), 7 (p = 0.001), and 14 days (p = 0.010). In the evaluation of paresthesia, on days 7 and 14, there were better results in the LASER group with p = 0.012 and p = 0.001. The laser acted as a moderator of the healing process, having a considerable effect on the aspects of trismus, pain, postoperative paresthesia, and bite force.