Objectives:Many a times in clinical periodontology, the decision whether to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics or not, is perplexing.The present study was conducted to compare the bacteremias induced after periodontal flap surgeries with and without prophylactic antibiotics.Materials and Methods:The occurrence of postoperative bacteremia following periodontal flap surgery was studied in 30 patients. On these patients, 30 quadrant wise flap surgeries were carried out without any preoperative prophylactic antibiotics and 30 surgeries carried out after prophylactic administration of amoxycillin preoperatively. A blood sample was taken from each patient at the time of maximum surgical trauma and was cultured for micro-organisms and antibiotic sensitivity.Results:18 out of 60 blood samples were positive for micro-organisms. There was a significant reduction in post operative bacteremia after amoxycillin prophylaxis (x2 - 7.96 with P<0.01) as post operative bacteremia was found in 14 of the non medicated patients as compared to only 4 of the pre medicated patients. The micro-organisms encountered in the study are as follows:- 1) Staphylococcus albus coagulase negative, 2) Klebsiella, 3) Psedomonas aerugenosa, 4) Streptococcus viridans, 5) Alpha hemolytic streptococcus, 6) Neisseria catarrhalisConclusion:On the basis of the study, it is concluded that the incidence of postoperative bacteremia following periodontal flap surgery is not as high as previously reported. The clinical results show that Amoxicillin is highly effective in reducing postoperative bacteremia in periodontal flap surgery and thus in preventing the possible sequelae (Infective Endocarditis and other systemic maladies) in susceptible patients. However, cefotaxime and cephalexin may prove to be more effective in preventing the same.
Background:Gingival Recession defects are one of the most common defects for which patients seek periodontal treatment. Many treatment options are available for the management of gingival recession. Most of the treatments offered aim to treat the cause, cover the denuded root surface and produce a long term aesthetic result. The use of periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) is a recent innovation for the treatment of gingival recession defects and has gained much attention in a short span of time. Although studies have been done utilizing PPG successfully for the treatment of gingival recession defects (GRD) but it is still not clear, whether PPG technique should be included in the established list of techniques used to treat GRD? An effort has been made to arrive at a decision on the current utility of PPG in the treatment of GRD based on the scientific evidence available in literature.Materials and Methods:A review of current literature was done to critically evaluate the evidence related to the Periosteal pedicle graft technique.Results and Conclusion:Periosteal Pedicle Graft has come up as a viable treatment option for the treatment of GRD although it's still too early to predict the long-term results associated with PPG.
Background:Various classification systems have been devised to classify gingival recession defects (GRDs). Recent evidence has raised many questions on the use of currently popular classification systems. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess various classification systems in the light of the current scientific literature.Methods:A comprehensive and systematic search was done to identify literature related to classification systems for GRD. Sources included books, journals, and online database. The search was done using the predefined criteria; 337 articles were initially identified through online database PubMed (Medline) and 12 from handsearch, of which a total of 10 full text articles were finally selected.Results:The classification systems which were included in the review included the classifications given by Sullivan and Atkins, Miller, Smith, Nordland and Tarnow, Kumar and Masamatti, and Mahajan. The systematic review revealed that the Sullivan and Atkins classification system for gingival recession was the most useful classification system for clinicians till the year 1985 in which P. D. Miller introduced the classification system for marginal tissue recession. From 1985 to till date, the Miller's classification system is the most frequently used and popular classification system.Conclusion:None of the classification systems for GRD fulfilled the ideal criteria; however, some of the recently introduced classification systems have evolved as a more comprehensive and viable alternative to already established classification systems.
Background: Edentulism is one of the most commonly encountered condition affecting the oral cavity. Dental implants have emerged as a widely accepted prosthetic treatment option. However, lack of public awareness and cost of the treatment act as barriers which limit their applicability. Materials and Methods : A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in five dental colleges in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India to assess the knowledge, attitude and perception of participants regarding the importance of replacing missing teeth and dental implants. Statistical analysis Used: Epi-info software version 7. Results: Majority of the patients were partially edentulous and believed that replacement of missing teeth is important but only half of participants had undergone treatment for the same. A large number of patients were aware about tooth replacement options but the awareness regarding dental implants was scarce. Conclusion:High cost and lack of information seem to be the major barriers in delivering dental implant treatment. Efforts are needed to educate and spread the awareness about implants among general population.
Background: Gingival recession is a common periodontal problem encountered in most populations. A number of classification systems are available to classify gingival recession defects (GRDs), but there has been a lack of consensus among the clinicians regarding the choice of classification system to classify GRDs. Recently, Miller's classification has been criticized owing to its inherent limitations. Mahajan's classification was proposed to eliminate the drawbacks of Miller's classification system. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study testing or comparing the reliability of Miller's classification; therefore, the present study was done to compare the reliability of Miller's classification with Mahajan's classification. Materials and Methods: The sites selected for the study were classified for GRD according to either Miller's classification or Mahajan's classification by the two groups of four examiners. All the examiners were calibrated for the two classification systems and classified the selected sites accordingly. Kappa statistics was performed to analyze the intra-and interrater agreement among the four examiners. Results: A total of 609 gingival recession sites in 91 patients (49 males and 42 females) were classified. At the end of the study, Mahajan's classification had a higher intrarater (κ = 0.93-0.83) and interrater reliability (κ = 0.93) compared to Miller's classification for GRD for both intrarater (κ = 0.57-0.68) and interrater observations (κ = 0.66), respectively. Conclusions: Miller's classification system was less reliable than Mahajan's classification system.
IntroductionMultiple gingival recession defects (MGRD) are considered a complex clinical scenario; therefore, recent scientific evidence suggests the need for further clinical research for treating MGRD. While coronally advanced flap (CAF) is an established procedure for the effective management of MGRD, its success is limited in terms of long‐term stability. The periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) has been drawing considerable attention as a treatment modality for managing gingival recession defects (GRD) owing to its immense regenerative potential and has shown promising results.Case SeriesThirty‐five patients, with maxillary MGRD in the age group of 25 to 40 years were randomly divided into PPG (test) and CAF (control) groups. The percentage of root coverage along with mean change in probing depth (PD), gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) and width of attached gingiva (WAG) were recorded, at baseline and after 1 year. Patient satisfaction criteria were also compared, and the results were analyzed statistically.ConclusionAfter 1 year, the test group had 91.3% defect coverage while the control group had 76.3% defect coverage. PPG was more predictable than CAF in terms of percent root coverage with superior esthetic outcomes for the treatment of MGRD.
Socket preservation aims at limiting the resorptive events that occurs as a consequence of tooth extraction. Besides the use of autologous and commercially available graft materials, there has been an increasing shift towards the utilization of biological substitutes like Platelet Rich Fibrin for socket preservation. : A randomized clinical trial was conducted in fourteen extraction sites, out of which seven were filled with alloplastic bone graft material alone (control group) and rest were filled with alloplastic bone graft material along with PRF (test group). The sites were assessed clinically and radiographically at baseline and six months post treatment. The mean +/- SD was calculated for alveolar ridge width and height. Although alveolar ridge width and height reduced significantly in the span of six months in both test and control groups, there was no statistically significant intergroup difference in both groups at six months post treatment in these parameters. Wound healing was comparatively better in the test group compared to the control group initially, but at the end of the study period both groups attained same level of healing. Even though alveolar socket preservation has a clinically significant effect on preserving the residual ridge dimensions, use of PRF as an adjunct to alloplastic bone graft in socket preservation procedure has no additional benefit over alloplastic bone graft material alone.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.