The present study was designed to compare the effects of low-level laser with occlusal splints in patients with signs and symptoms of myofascial pain (MP) dysfunction syndrome. A total of 40 (34 women and 6 men, with a mean age of 32.84 [SD, 10.70] years) were selected after the diagnosis of MP according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: study group (n = 20) and control group (n = 20). Low-level laser was applied to patients in the study group 2 times per week, for a total of 10 sessions. Patients in the control group were instructed to wear occlusal splints 24 h/d for 3 months. The functional examination was based on Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder and pressure pain threshold values were obtained with the aid of an algometer in both groups. Patients' self-report of pain was evaluated with visual analog scale. Comparisons were made within and between the groups before and after treatment. Vertical movements showed statistically significant improvements after the treatments in both groups (P < 0.01), but when the groups were compared with each other, there were no significant difference between the groups. In both groups, tenderness to palpation of the muscles decreased significantly. Pressure pain threshold evaluations and visual analog scale scores revealed similar results, too. This particular type of low-level laser therapy (820 nm, 3 J/cm2, 300-mW output power) is as effective as occlusal splint in pain release and mandibular movement improvement in MP.

To evaluate the effect of Low Level Laser (LLL) application at the points of greatest pain in patients with chronic masticatory muscle pain. A total number of 30 (21 women, 9 men, with a mean age of 39.2) were selected after the diagnosis of MPDS according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder (RDC/TMD). The patients were randomly divided into three groups; laser group I (n = 10); patients received the LLL at the point of greatest pain, laser group II (n = 10); patients received LLL at pre-established points in the effected muscles and placebo group (n = 10). LLL and placebo were applied three times per week, for a total of 12 sessions. Mandibular mobility was examined, masticator muscles tenderness were assessed and PPT values were obtained. Subjective pain levels were evaluated using VAS. The measurements performed before the treatment and after the completion of the therapy. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency) Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test and paired-sample t-tests were used for analysis. In both laser groups, there was a statically significant reduction in PPT values of the muscles, number of muscles without any pain on palpation increased significantly, mandibular movements’ ranges were improved. Laser group I demonstrated statistically better results than the Laser group II in all of the measured values. Plasebo group did not show any statistically difference in any of the measured values. LLLT can be accepted as an alternative treatment modality in the management of masticatory muscle pain and direct irradiation seems to effect better. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31085 , Date of registration 28/08/20145.

Objectives: The use of osseointegrated implants as an endoestal anchorage device to provide support for dental prostheses is a reliable and widely accepted treatment modality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of non-submerged implants placed in the maxilla or in the mandible.Methods: A total of 146 International Team for Implantology (ITI) (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) implants were placed in 42 patients (20 women, 22 men, mean age 42). The cases were examined retrospectively in order to evaluate the clinical efficiency of non-submerged ITI implants and to determine the success rate of implant retained/supported prosthesis after a 5-year period. All implants were assessed clinically and radiographically on a yearly basis.Results: The 5-year cumulative success rates for maxillary and mandibular implants were 91.00% and 97.81%, respectively. The most common prosthetic complication was abutment accompanied by screw loosing (3.42%). Veneering material fracture was documented in only one patient.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the observation period and sample number, the present findings confirmed sufficient success and survival rates of ITI implants placed in mandible as well as implants placed in the maxilla after a 5-year period. (Eur J Dent 2009;3:42-49)

Objective. To determine the effects of various implant retained and/or supported prostheses on number of occlusal contacts (NOC), occlusal contact area (OCA)and maximum bite force (BF). Patients and methods: In total, 56 patients were included in the study; five test groups and two control groups. The patients in the treatment groups received implant-supported/retained prosthesis; over-dentures retained with two individual attachments in occlusion with complete denture, with four individual attachments in occlusion with complete denture, with four individual attachments in occlusion with fixed partial dentures or natural dentition, 6-implant retained fixed bridges in occlusion with natural dentition and 8-implant retained fixed bridges in occlusion with natural dentition. The patients in control group 1 were wearing conventional complete maxillary and mandibular dentures, whereas in control group 2 they had fixed full-arch porcelain-fused to metal restorations prostheses for both arches. Dental Pre-scale was used measure the NOC, BF and OCA. Results. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups, among the groups with regards to NOC. OCA demonstrated different results among the removable and fixed reconstruction groups. With regards to BF, removable dentures supported with four implants showed higher bite force values than controls and two implant over-dentures. Also, a fixed reconstruction using eight implants showed higher BF values than a fixed reconstruction using six implants. Conclusion. Use of implants for removable dentures and fixed reconstructions improve occlusal contact area and bite force.