-The main purpose of this review is to present the aetiological factors and the mechanism that cause dilaceration of the maxillary central incisors. In early developmental stages, the permanent tooth germ of the maxillary incisor is situated palatally and superiorly to the apex of the primary incisor and gradually changes direction in a labial direction with its crown coming closer to the resorbing primary root. For reasons of this close relationship between the permanent tooth germ and the apex of the primary incisor, it is believed that an acute trauma to the primary predecessor can cause dilaceration of the long axis of the permanent successor. Clinically, dilaceration can be revealed by palpation high in the labial sulcus or in the hard palate, while its radiographic view is characteristic. The therapeutic approach to the dilacerated maxillary central incisors has to be carefully planned and needs the cooperation of several specialities to attain the final objective.

The connection between fixture/abutment rather than vertical implant placement in relation to alveolar bone level seems to affect peri-implant marginal bone resorption.

ObjectiveTo assess survival, as well as technical and biological complication rates of partial fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by implants and teeth.MethodAn electronic Medline search was conducted to identify articles, published in dental journals from January 1980 to August 2015, reporting on partial FDPs supported by implants and teeth. The search terms were categorized into four groups comprising the PICO question. Manual searches of published full‐text articles and related reviews were also performed.ResultsThe initial database search produced 3587 relevant titles. Three hundred and eighty‐six articles were retrieved for abstract review, while 39 articles were selected for full‐text review. A total of 10 studies were selected for inclusion. Overall survival rate for implants ranged between 90% and 100%, after follow‐up periods with a mean range of 18–120 months. The survival of the abutment teeth was 94.1–100%, while the prostheses survival was 85–100% for the same time period. The most frequent complications were “periapical lesions” (11.53%). The most frequent technical complication was “porcelain occlusal fracture” (16.6%), followed by “screw loosening” (15%). According to the meta‐analysis, no intrusion was noted on the rigid connection group, while five teeth (8.19%) were intruded in the non‐rigid connection group [95% CI (0.013–0.151)].ConclusionThe tooth–implant FDP seems to be a possible alternative to an implant‐supported FDP. There is limited evidence that rigid connection between teeth and implants presents better results when compared with the non‐rigid one. The major drawback of non‐rigidly connected FDPs is tooth intrusion.

Miniscrews offer a reliable alternative for anchorage during orthodontic treatment, particularly for non-cooperative patients or periodontal patients with alveolar bone loss. The study aims at assessing the correlation of various clinical indicators with the success or failure of miniscrews used for anchorage during orthodontic treatment. Thirty-four consecutive patients with a cumulative total of 82 miniscrews implanted participated in the study. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to assess the correlation of various factors with success rates. The miniscrew was considered the unit of analysis clustered within site and within patient. The overall success rate of miniscrews was 90.2%. For every additional miniscrew used in a patient's oral cavity, the success rate was reduced by 67%. Retromandibular triangle and palatal placement and in movable mucosa resulted in lower success rate. The miniscrew length and diameter were found to correlate with success rates. Orthodontic force applied on miniscrews for uprighting purposes showed a lower success rate than that used for retraction. This study revealed that miniscrews present high success rates. The number of miniscrews used per patient, the miniscrew site placement, the soft tissue type of placement, the miniscrew length and diameter as well as the orthodontic force applied on the miniscrew showed significant correlation with success rates.

The activity of moxifloxacin was compared with ofloxacin and doxycycline against bacteria associated with periodontitis within a biofilm (single strain and mixed population) in vitro. MICs and minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of moxifloxacin, ofloxacin and doxycyline were determined against single strains and mixed populations in a planktonic state. Single-species biofilms of two Porphyromonas gingivalis and two Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans strains and a multispecies biofilm consisting of 12 species were formed for 3 days. The minimal biofilm eradication concentrations (MBECs) were determined after exposing the biofilms to the antibacterials (0.002-512 mg ml "1 ) for 18 h, addition of nutrient broth for 3 days and subsequent subcultivation. Photographs were taken using confocal laser-scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. The MICs and MBCs did not differ between ofloxacin and moxifloxacin against A. actinomycetemcomitans, whilst moxifloxacin was more active than the other tested antibacterials against anaerobes and the mixed population. The single-species biofilms were eradicated by moderate concentrations of the antibacterials, and the lowest MBECs were always found for moxifloxacin (2-8 mg ml "1 ). MBECs against the multispecies biofilms were 128, .512 and .512 mg ml "1 for moxifloxacin, ofloxacin and doxycycline, respectively. In summary, moxifloxacin in a topical formulation may have potential as an adjunct to mechanical removal of the biofilms.