PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M G Grusovin

Publications and source records attributed to M G Grusovin.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: 1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; 2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; 3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; 4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; 5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed.

Dental Implants↗
PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: (A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 1 October 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 330 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. No bone promoting molecule has been shown to be effective or necessary in conjunction with dental implant treatment. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development. OBJECTIVES: To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of 2 techniques of subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions.

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcome of connective tissue grafts in the treatment of gingival recessions has been documented in numerous studies. However, no attempt has been made to correlate the postoperative mucogingival changes with the surgical parameters. The present retrospective clinical study was undertaken to 1) evaluate root coverage and mucogingival changes 1 to 1.5 years following treatment of Miller's Class I and II recession defects using 2 variants of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) procedure, and 2) assess the effect of the surgical parameters on the postoperative gingival width. METHODS: Thirty-one recessions in 10 patients treated with the envelope technique (E) and 31 recessions in 11 patients treated with coronally positioned flap combined with connective tissue graft (CP) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate: 1) percentage of root coverage obtained with the 2 procedures and variations in width of keratinized tissue (KT) 1 to 1.5 years postsurgery, and 2) the effect of the surgical parameters on the postoperative gingival width. RESULTS: Results showed a mean root coverage percentage of 89.6 +/- 15% for the E group and 94.7 +/- 11.4% for the CP group; the difference between groups was statistically insignificant (P = 0.1388). Mean KT increased significantly from 1.4 +/- 1.1 mm presurgery to 4.5 +/- 1.1 mm postsurgery for the E group while a minor increase in KT was observed in the CP group (2 +/- 1.5 mm presurgery versus 2.7 +/- 1.6 mm postsurgery). For both treatment groups, the mean postsurgical width of keratinized tissue (POSTKT) was found to be mathematically correlated with the mean presurgical width of keratinized tissue (PREKT) and the corono-apical height of the graft that remained exposed (GE) coronal to the flap margin in the recipient site. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of human gingival recession defects by the 2 variants of SCTG resulted in significant recession reduction. When SCTG is grafted beneath alveolar mucosa using the combined technique (CP), transformation of the mucosa into keratinized tissue does not seem to occur, at least within 1 to 1.5 years postsurgery. The treatment outcome in terms of keratinized tissue width seems to be correlated with the presurgical gingival dimensions and the height of the graft that remains exposed at the end of the surgical procedure.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Histology of connective tissue graft. A case report.

BACKGROUND: Few investigations can be found in the literature on the histological nature of the attachment of connective tissue grafts to root surfaces previously exposed by recession. METHODS: In this case report, a 24-year-old patient was treated with a connective tissue graft combined with a partial-thickness coronally positioned flap for root coverage of Class I Miller recessions at the maxillary right and left canines and first premolars. The treated sites exhibited 83% and 100% root coverage on the right and left sides, respectively. Twelve months later, the case required extraction of all 4 first premolars for orthodontic reasons. Two conservative block sections including the maxillary first premolars with the buccal soft tissues were obtained and processed histologically in a bucco-palatal plane. RESULTS: Histological analysis showed that healing occurred via a long junctional epithelium throughout the major portion of the previous recession site. Only minimal signs of new cementum-like tissue formation could be seen in the apical portion of the recession area coronal to the base of the instrumented root surface. No root resorption or ankylosis could be detected in any of the serial sections. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this case report outline the possible variations in the histological outcome of connective tissue grafts. These variations can be attributed to differences in size and shape of the recession defects and flap positioning at the end of surgery.

Adult↗