No abstract

Background and objectivesExcessive and prolonged work-related stress has always been a cause for burnout among healthcare professionals. This has led to emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion. This survey was conducted to assess the burnout among medical practitioners using the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory (aMBI) and Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire (BCSQ-12) scales.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 482 registered medical practitioners across India. A questionnaire consisting of 25 socio-demographic and occupational questions related to aMBI and BCSQ-12 scales was used to assess the burnout. The distribution of responses for each variable was examined using frequencies and percentages among the subgroups to find out the burnout levels of various components of the scales.ResultsHigh burnout levels were uniformly recorded for the entire population. For the aMBI, 45.02% (n = 217) and 65.98% (n = 318) of the participants scored high on the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scales, respectively, whereas 87.14% (n = 420) scored low on the personal accomplishment scale and 62.86% (n = 303) and 11.41% (n = 55) had medium and low scores on the satisfaction with the medical practice scale. The BCSQ-12 scale showed the mean values of 15.89, 11.56, and 10.28 on a scale of 28 for overload, lack of development, and neglect subtypes, respectively, whereas, satisfaction with the financial compensation item showed a mean value of 3.79 on a scale of seven. All these values indicate high levels of burnout.ConclusionThe results suggest high levels of burnout in all domains of aMBI and BCSQ-12 scales in all the occupational and socio-demographic groups of medical practitioners and warrant immediate actions to address this issue.

Background: There is growing evidence on the impact of thin gingival phenotype (TnP) and inadequate keratinized mucosa width (KMW <2 mm) around dental implants on peri-implant health. This study investigated the role of TnP and inadequate KMW (<2 mm) as risk indicators for peri-implantitis and mucositis and on dental patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Sixty-three patients with 193 implants (mean follow-up of 6.9 ± 3.7 years) were given a clinical and radiographic examination and a questionnaire to assess patient awareness of food impaction and pain/discomfort. Chi-squared tests and regression analysis for clustered data were used to compare outcomes. Results:Implants with TnP had a statistically higher prevalence of periimplantitis (27.1% versus 11.3%; PR, 3.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-6.72; P = 0.001) peri-implant mucositis (42.7% versus 33%; PR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.12-2.9; P = 0.016) and pain/discomfort during oral hygiene (25% versus 5%; PR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.06-12.96; P = 0.044) than thick phenotype. Implants with inadequate KMW had a statistically higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (24.

The recently popularized socket-shield technique involves intentional retention of a section of the remnant root at the time of immediate implant placement, thereby preserving the buccal/proximal bone from resorption. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the literature available on the socket-shield technique and weigh its biological plausibility and long-term clinical prognosis. A systematic search was performed on PubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central for clinical/animal studies from January 1970 to April 2017. Twenty-three studies were assessed: 1 clinical case-control study, 4 animal histological reports, 1 clinical abstract, and 17+2* case reports. Eighteen out of the 23 studies had a duration of ≤12 months. A quality assessment of 5 studies (4 animal histologic and 1 clinical case-control) performed using the modified Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments guidelines revealed that 4/5 studies had low scores. Fifty-eight out of 70 (82.86%) implants from 4 animal histological studies had complications; buccal/crestal bone loss (54.55%) and failure of osseointegration (27.27%) were the most common. Thirty-three out of 136 (24.26%) implants from 19+2 (2 studies had both histologic and clinical components, which are assessed separately) clinical studies had complications; buccal/crestal bone loss (78.78%) and shield exposure/failure (12.12%) were the most common. Other complications recorded were periodontal ligament and cementum formation on implant surfaces, pocket formation, inflammation, mucositis, and peri-implantitis. However, some clinical reports indicated stable results at 12 months. It would be difficult to predict the long-term success of this technique until high-quality evidence becomes available. A video abstract is available for viewing at https://youtu.be/lNMeUxj2XPA?list=PLvRxNhB9EJqbqjcYMbwKbwi8Xpbb0YuHI .

Objectives The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between interproximal open contacts and peri‐implant disease. The secondary aim was to assess patient‐reported outcome measures in relation to contact status. Materials and methods A cross‐sectional study was performed on 61 patients with 142 implants adjacent to at least one natural tooth. Patients underwent a clinical examination to assess contact status and width, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depths (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Radiographic marginal bone level was measured in vertical bitewings taken within one year. A diagnosis was given to each implant. Last, subjects completed a brief questionnaire. Rao‐scott chi‐squared tests and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Seventy‐seven (54.2%) implants were found to have ≥1 interproximal open contact. Sixty‐five (45.8%) implants had closed contacts only. Implants with interproximal open contacts were significantly associated with peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (p = .003) and increased prevalence of peri‐implant disease (adjusted PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09–2.27, p = .015). Open contact status was also associated with higher PPD (p = .045), PI scores (p = .036), and GI scores (p = .021). Open contact prevalence was 75.4% on the patient‐level and 54.2% on the implant‐level, involving the mesial surface of the implant restorations 68.5% of the time (p < .001). Conclusion Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth are a risk indicator for peri‐implant disease. Adequate contact between implant restorations and natural teeth may contribute to the health of peri‐implant tissues.