International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 4/2019
Online OnlyDOI: 10.11607/prd.4145, PubMed-ID: 31226187Seiten: 99-110, Sprache: Englisch
The objective of this study was to compare patient-related outcomes of conventional protocols with computer-assisted implant planning and templateguided implant placement (CAIPP) protocols. Partially edentulous patients (N = 73) were assigned to either surgical planning based on two-dimensional radiographs and freehand implant placement (control; n = 26) or using threedimensional computer-tomography data and implant placement using a toothsupported surgical guide (test groups T1 [n = 24] and T2 [n = 23]). The two test groups differed from each other in digital data acquisition, software functionality, and the guide-manufacturing process. All surgeries were performed as openflap procedures. Patient-related outcome measures were evaluated using questionnaires. Statistical tests were performed to investigate differences between treatment groups. Before treatment, 53% of patients in the control group and 83% of patients in the test groups (T1: 88%, T2: 78%) were satisfied with their group allocation. In the control group, 37% of patients favored CAIPP technology, while only 11% in the test groups would have preferred a conventional procedure. After treatment, 50% of patients in the control and 86% in the test groups (T1: 76%, T2: 94%) were satisfied with their allocation. Twenty-one percent of controlgroup patients favored the CAIPP treatment, while 6% of the test-group patients would have preferred a conventional treatment. The quality-of-life parameters during and after surgery did not show significant differences between groups. More postoperative discomfort was reported after longer and more-complex surgeries including guided bone regeneration and surgeries with two surgical sites. Generally, patients preferred computer-based technologies. No differences in the intra- or postoperative discomfort were observed compared to control protocols. More-extensive surgical procedures negatively affected the intraand postoperative quality of life, irrespective of the treatment group allocation.
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 5/2016
DOI: 10.11607/prd.2660, PubMed-ID: 27560676Seiten: 715-721, Sprache: Englisch
The application of laser as a monotherapy has been shown to reduce probing pocket depths and increase clinical attachment levels after treatment of patients suffering from chronic periodontitis. Its controversial use as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) is discussed. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive Er, Cr:YSGG laser application following conventional SRP. A total of 30 patients with chronic periodontitis were enrolled in the study. The quadrants of each patient were allocated to either SRP or SRP + laser. A total of 3,654 sites with pocket depths ≥ 4 mm were treated and evaluated at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively with respect to attachment gain. Both therapies resulted in improved probing pocket depths and clinical attachment levels. The adjunctive application of Er, Cr:YSGG laser following SRP did not improve probing pocket depth or attachment level compared with SRP alone.