Periodontal disease is a multi-microbial infection of the teeth-supporting apparatus that manifests as clinical attachment loss and alveolar bone loss. The association between periodontal disease and systemic diseases has been proposed in the literature owing to the former’s chronic state of inflammation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes are no exception. As a result of periodontal pathogen invasion, a series of systemic inflammatory and immunologic events affecting the safety of the fetoplacental unit may unfold. This may be further exaggerated by physiologic hormonal and metabolic fluctuations during pregnancy. This can not only negatively affect the gestation period and consequently cause preterm low weight but also complicate the pregnancy via preeclampsia and gestational diabetes. This narrative review article aims to provide a summary of relevant available evidence pertinent to the relationship between periodontal diseases, associated periodontal pathogens and virulence mechanisms mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines and prostaglandins, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Furthermore, this article highlights some of the literature addressing the impact of periodontal therapy interventions and pregnancy outcomes.

Background: Sagittal root position (SRP) influences immediate implant planning in the maxillary anterior region. Although previous studies have reported straight screw-channel (SSC) and angulated screw-channel (ASC) frequencies, their relationship with SRP classification remains insufficiently characterized. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the association between SRP classification and projected restorative type in virtually planned immediate implants. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 300 selected CBCT scans from Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, comprising 1800 maxillary anterior teeth. SRP classification, buccal wall thickness, virtual implant eligibility, implant dimensions, and restorative categories were recorded using predefined planning criteria. Mixed-effects models accounted for within-patient clustering, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean buccal wall thickness was 0.86 ± 0.30, 1.09 ± 0.46, and 0.88 ± 0.49 mm at 0, 2, and 4 mm from the crest, respectively. SRP Class I predominated (76.4%). Overall, 1436 sites (79.8%) fulfilled virtual implant planning criteria. Among the eligible sites, 82.5% were classified as ASC, 13.7% as SSC, and 3.8% as cement-retained. ASC frequencies among all sites within SRP Classes I, II, and III were 75.6%, 56.4%, and 52.4%, respectively. After adjustment for tooth type and patient clustering, eligible Class II/III sites had higher odds of SSC classification than Class I sites (OR = 2.60; 95% CI: 1.65–4.09). Conclusions: In this selected CBCT sample, SRP classification was associated with projected restorative requirements. ASC correction expanded the proportion of virtually eligible sites theoretically compatible with screw-retained restorations. These findings describe planning feasibility rather than demonstrated clinical outcomes.

Management of a failing maxillary anterior tooth with extensive periapical pathology and loss of the buccal alveolar plate carries a significant esthetic and biological challenge, particularly in esthetically demanding patients. This report describes the interdisciplinary management of a compromised maxillary central incisor. Sequenced treatment plan included prophylactic root end resection, site reconstruction for future implant placement while preserving the tooth temporarily throughout the treatment period. After eight months of healing, digital implant planning was utilized to facilitate prosthetically driven immediate implant placement and immediate provisionalization. The provisional restoration was maintained for approximately 1 year before delivery of the definitive restoration. Clinical and radiographic findings at the two-year follow-up demonstrated stable peri-implant hard and soft tissues.

Background/Objectives: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is commonly performed following tooth extraction to minimize post-extraction dimensional changes. However, limited information is available regarding root-volume variations among different tooth types. This study aimed to assess the root volumes of maxillary and mandibular teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare the measured root volumes with commonly available graft-material package volumes in the context of ARP. Methods: CBCT scans from 53 patients meeting the eligibility criteria were retrospectively evaluated. Fourteen teeth per scan were assessed using a split-mouth approach, resulting in a total of 742 teeth. Root boundaries were identified by two trained and calibrated dentists, and root volumes were calculated using OsiriX MD v13.0.3 software. Statistical comparisons were performed using paired and independent t-tests. Results: Root volumes varied according to tooth type and arch. The maxillary first molar demonstrated the highest mean root volume (0.55 ± 0.10 cm³), whereas the mandibular central incisor demonstrated the lowest (0.11 ± 0.02 cm³). Maxillary teeth showed significantly greater root volumes than their mandibular counterparts. Gender-related differences were limited to the maxillary second premolar and mandibular second molar and were considered of limited clinical relevance. For illustrative comparison, the measured root volumes were considered in relation to commonly available graft-material package volumes, including 0.25 and 0.50 cc; these comparisons do not represent clinically validated graft requirements. Conclusions: This study provides CBCT-derived reference root-volume values for different tooth types and demonstrates variations according to tooth type and arch. Comparison of these measurements with commonly available graft-material package volumes may provide a descriptive volumetric reference in the context of ARP. However, root volume does not directly represent post-extraction socket volume or the quantity of graft material required clinically. Therefore, these comparisons should not be interpreted as recommendations for graft quantity, and prospective clinical studies comparing root volume with actual socket volume and graft utilization are required before clinical application.