No abstract

Aim: This study was to evaluate clinically and radiographically the volume changes of alveolar ridge grafting using customized xenogenic bone graft. Materials and Methods: A total of 12 patients with mandibular horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge defects ≥ 3 mm were selected. They were divided into 2 groups: Group I (Test Group) included 6 patients in which mandibular alveolar ridges were reconstructed with customized Xenogenic bone graft Smartbone (IBI S.A., Switzerland). Group II (Control Group) included 6 patients in which mandibular alveolar ridges were reconstructed with particulate Xenogenic bone (Smart bone, IBI S.A., Switzerland) grafting to posterior mandibular ridge with titanium mesh was performed. Volume analysis of the changes in alveolar ridge in both Groups were obtained before and four months after the procedure using CBCT. Densitometric analysis of the Postoperative bone formed and compared with native bone. . Results: Four months postoperatively. Measurements made on cone-beam computerized tomograms, four months postoperative showed significance increase in bone volume by 40 % in the area of newly formed bone in Group I (Customized bone) compared with 23% in Control Group. Statistical significant changes was found in the density of newly formed bone four months post-operatively in both Groups, however there was no significant difference in bone density postoperatively between Group I (customized Bone) and Group II (Control). Conclusion:According to the results, the treatment of defective alveolar ridge augmentation of the mandibular ridge with customized xenogenic bone graft Smartbone (IBI S.A., Switzerland) is successful and produces results consistent with the control Group.

Aim: : To assess the most common microorganisms causing odontogenic infections and the most effective antibiotic against. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 150 patients with maxillofacial infection. The pus sample was collected, cultured (aerobically and anaerobically) and stained for morphological study of the isolates. Antibiotic sensitivity test for the isolates were performed. Results: A total of 260 microorganisms were isolated, Pure aerobes were identified in 54(36%) of cases, pure anaerobes in 8(5%), mixed aerobes and anaerobes in 79(53%) andno pathogenic organism were isolated in 9(6%). Among the entire aerobic isolates, Ciprofloxacin and Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid were the most effective drug (100%) followed by Clindamycin (90%). The leasteffective drugs were amoxicillin (85%). Among the entire anaerobic isolates, Metronidazole was the most effective drug (100%) followed by Ciprofloxacin, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, Clindamycin (90%) each and Cefotaxime(80%). The leasteffective drug was amoxicillin (100%). Conclusion: The most common bacteria isolated were Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., Klebsiella spp., Prevotella spp., Peptostreptococcus spp. Ciprofloxacin, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and Clindamycin were the most effective drugs for all isolates. The least effective drug was amoxicillin.

Objectives: This study was conducted to assess and compare the effect of platelets rich fibrin (PRF) versus mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) as bone regenerative materials during immediate implant placement. Material and Methods: A total of 10 patients with 12 implants have been included in this study, patients were divided into 2 groups. Group I received Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix (MPM), and group II received Platelets Rich Fibrin (PRF) as bone regenerative materials for immediate implant placement. The treatment outcome was evaluated clinically and radiographically at 3 and 6 months of implant placement. Also bone height and bone density were measured radiographically preoperatively, immediate post operatively, at 3 and 6 months postoperatively and statistically analysed. Results: Statistical analysis showed that bone density increased significantly (p≤0.05) at 3, and 6 months postoperatively in both groups. By comparing the two groups, Group I had statistically significant (p≤0.05) higher bone density scores than Group II at all of the follow up intervals. Regarding the bone height, there was no statistically significant difference (P ≥ 0.05) between the two groups at all of the follow up intervals except that group I showed a statistically significant (P ≥ 0.05) higher mesial bone height level at 3and 6 months postoperatively accompanied by a statistically significant (P ≥ 0.05) higher distal bone level as well at 6 months postoperatively than that of group II. Conclusion: The use of MPM was more superior to PRF as bone regenerative material for immediate implant placement regarding bone height and bone density.

No abstract