Aim To compare the Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) of patients with mobile mandibular incisors before and after full‐mouth disinfection (FMD) with and without splinting. Material and methods Thirty‐four periodontitis patients with ≥1 mobile mandibular incisor (degree II/III) were randomly allocated to the test or control group. All patients received FMD and the test group additional splinting of teeth 33–43. OHRQoL was assessed before (BL) and 3 months after FMD (RE) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)‐14. Data were compared within and between the groups (Wilcoxon test/Mann–Whitney U test). Results Twenty‐eight patients (13 test group/15 control group) were re‐evaluated. FMD led to a reduction of the mean probing pocket depth (PPD; in mm) (test group: BL‐PPD 3.89 ± 1.03, RE‐PPD 2.82 ± 0.53; control group: BL‐PPD 3.58 ± 0.66, RE‐PPD 2.77 ± 0.59; each p ≤ .001), the mean clinical attachment level (CAL; in mm) (test group: BL‐CAL 5.22 ± 1.38, RE‐CAL 4.79 ± 0.85; control group: BL‐CAL 4.58 ± 1.10, RE‐CAL 4.41 ± 0.96; each p ≤ .05), and the mean OHIP‐14 summary scores (test group: BL‐OHIP 21.7 ± 11.06, RE‐OHIP 9.9 ± 8.96, p = .0046; control group: BL‐OHIP 16.8 ± 8.27, RE‐OHIP 11.7 ± 8.55; p = .0217). The reduction of the OHIP‐G14 scores was considerably higher in the test group but statistically not significant (p = .080). Conclusions The results show a positive impact of non‐surgical periodontal treatment on OHRQoL and a possible tendency for further improvement by splinting mobile mandibular incisors.

Objectives To compare the outcome of periodontal parameters in mobile mandibular incisors which were splinted before or after full-mouth disinfection (FMD). Materials and methods Thirty-four periodontitis patients with ≥ 1 mobile mandibular incisor (mobility degree II/III, clinical attachment loss (CAL) ≥ 5 mm, relative bone loss ≥ 50%) were randomly allocated to group A or B. Patients received periodontal treatment (PT) including splinting of teeth 33–43 before (A) or after FMD (B). Patient (age/sex/smoking status/systemic diseases/number of teeth) and tooth-related parameters (mean probing pocket depth (PPD)/CAL/oral hygiene indices; for the overall dentition and region 33–43) were assessed prior to PT and 12 months after FMD by a blinded examiner. Therapy-related information was added (group/antibiotic therapy/surgical intervention). Results Twenty-six patients (A: 12; B:14) were re-examined. Two patients of group B did not need splinting after FMD because of reduction in mobility after FMD. Regression analysis revealed a positive association of antibiotic therapy with CAL_overall, PPD_overall, and PPD_33-43 (p ≤ 0.01). There is a trend toward a higher reduction of periodontal parameters at teeth 33–43 in group A (PPD_33-43: − 0.91 vs. − 0.27 mm; CAL_33-43: − 1.02 vs. − 0.47 mm). Conclusions Teeth splinted before or after FMD show a significant improvement in periodontal parameters 12 months after FMD. Splinting after FMD offered the option to detect reduction in mobility. Clinical relevance Despite a higher, but not statistically significant, improvement in periodontal parameters on teeth splinted before FMD, the results do not indicate which timepoint of splinting is more beneficial. The decision for the therapeutic procedure should therefore be made individually.

ObjectivesTo compare clinical parameters of implants versus natural teeth over a period of 5 years during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).Material and MethodsA total of 421 SPT patients were screened for implants (I) and corresponding control teeth (C). Data (patient level [P]: sex, age, smoking status, systemic diseases, adherence, oral hygiene indices, mean probing depth [PD]P, bleeding on probing [BOP]P, periodontal risk profile; implant/control tooth level [I/C]: PDI/C, BOPI/C; site level at implants [SITE]: position, dental arch, aspect, BOPSITE) were assessed at the first SPT session where the implant was probed (T1) and 5 years later (T2). The influence of patient and implant/control‐related factors on PDI/C/BOPI/C was tested (linear mixed model) as well as the influence of site‐specific factors on the PDSITE change (multilevel regression).ResultsA total of 70 patients (151 implants) were included. Mean PDI was 2.75 ± 0.85 mm (T1) and 2.87 ± 0.79 mm (T2). Mean PDC was 2.42 ± 0.66 mm (T1) and 2.49 ± 0.71 mm (T2). BOPI increased from 8.62 ± 15.01% (T1) to 24.06 ± 26.79% (T2) and BOPC from 9.97 ± 17.78% (T1) to 15.52 ± 22.69% (T2). The differences between implants and controls were significant for BOP (p = .0032). At T2, BOPI/C was associated with periodontal risk (p = .0351). The site‐specific analysis revealed an association of BOPSITE at T1 with the progression of PDSITE (p = .0058).ConclusionsProbing depths of implants and controls seem to change similarly during SPT but retention of inflammation‐free conditions at implants appears to be more difficult compared to natural teeth. Patients with a high‐risk profile appear to have an increased susceptibility for BOP around implants, and BOP at implants seems to be a predictor for further PD increase.