Objective: A review is made to determine whether the use of the endoscope in endodontic surgery offers advantages in clinical practice, and whether it improves the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the procedure.Material and methods: The main search terms used were: endodontic surgery, apicoectomy, apical surgery, endoscope, and magnification devices.The authors searched the Medline database for articles published up to 1 September 2010.The review included experimental studies comparing endoscopic microstructural findings with the findings of the naked eye or other magnification devices, as well as prospective clinical trials comparing endodontic surgery with or without the use of an endoscope, or comparing the endoscope with some other magnification device.Results: Two experimental studies on the capability of the endoscope to identify microstructures and three prospective clinical trials were included in the review.The experimental studies showed the endoscope to be highly precise in application to intraoperative diagnoses in periapical surgery.There were no significant differences in the prognosis of periapical surgery when performed with or without endoscopy.Likewise, there were no significant differences among the use of endoscopy, magnifying lenses or the microscope.Conclusion: Experimental studies have demonstrated the usefulness of the endoscope in identifying microstructures during periapical surgery.However, further randomized and controlled clinical trials are needed to determine whether these advantages in clinical practice imply improved outcomes for periapical surgery.
To evaluate the frequency, morphology, and locations of maxillary sinus septa using cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging of the entire maxillary sinus and to analyze factors influencing the presence or absence of septa.CBCT images of the maxilla taken during a 1-year study period (October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013) were evaluated for the presence and type of septa as well as the health or pathology of the maxillary sinus. Differences in age, gender, type of dentition, septa location, and sinus pathology with regard to the incidence of sinus septa were analyzed statistically.The study included 294 maxillary sinuses in 212 patients (126 women and 86 men) with a mean age of 53.8 years. Sinus septa were present in 141 patients (66.5%) and in 166 of 294 sinuses (56.5%). The most common orientation of the septa was coronal (61.8%), 7.6% were oriented axially, and 3.6% were aligned sagittally. Most septa were located on the floor of the maxillary sinus (58.6%), commonly (60.7%) in the region of the first and second molars. The maxillary sinuses were diagnosed in 36.4% of cases as healthy and without thickening of the sinus membrane. Sex was a significant variable in the health of the maxillary sinus; 57.7% of the sinuses in women and 72.3% in men were diagnosed as pathologic.Septa are common anatomical structures and are most often found in the first or second molar region on the floor of the maxillary sinus. To prevent possible complications during sinus floor elevation procedures, a thorough three-dimensional radiographic examination of the sinus prior to surgery is recommended.
The aim of the study was to examine articles published on risk factors associated with early failure of dental implants.We conducted a search on PubMed for articles published between January 2000 and December 2009 using the keywords 'dental implants' and 'early failure'.Seven studies that specified the number of early failed implants and studied the associated risk factors were included.Early failures are caused by the inability of tissue to establish osseointegration prior to prosthetic restoration; however the causal factors and mechanisms are unclear.In the reviewed literature there was a higher percentage of early than late failures; nevertheless, few articles were found that analyzed risk factors associated with early implant failure.In the majority of studies, statistically significant factors associated with early implant failure were smoking, quantity and quality of bone, and posterior implant location.The low number of studies in the literature does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.
A review is made of the publications on the marginal bone loss of implants with a polished neck, rough neck with microthreading, and rough neck without microthreading.A PubMed search was carried out with the following key words: machined neck implant, polished neck implant, marginal bone loss, covering the period between January 1998 and March 2009.Inclusion was limited to those human clinical studies involving a minimum follow-up of 12 months, and registering the level of bone loss from the time of placement of the implant or prosthetic restoration to the end of follow-up.For most of the authors there were no significant differences in marginal bone loss between polished neck and rough neck implants.On the other hand, implants with a rough neck and microthreading showed significantly less bone loss than those with a polished neck or with a rough neck without microthreading.The survival rate of the implants with a polished neck ranged from 87% to 97.7%, versus 94.5% to 100% for those with a rough neck, and 100% for the rough neck implants with microthreading.No peri-implant disease was registered in the different studies.
The future of dental practice is closely linked to the utilization of computer-based technology, specifically virtual reality, which allows the dental surgeon to simulate true life situations in patients. The virtual articulator has been designed for the exhaustive analysis of static and dynamic occlusion, with the purpose of substituting mechanical articulators and avoiding their errors. These tools will help both odontologists and dental prosthetists to provide the best individualized treatment for each patient. The present review analyzes the studies published in the literature on the design, functioning and applications of virtual articulators. A Medline-PubMed search was made of dental journals, with the identification of 137 articles, of which 16 were finally selected. The virtual articulator can simulate the specific masticatory movement of the patient. During mandibular animation, the program calculates the sites where the opposing teeth come into contact. The studies made to assess the reliability of the virtual articulator show good correspondence in visualization of the number and position of the dynamic contacts. The virtual articulator is a precise tool for the full analysis of occlusion in a real patient.
To evaluate the effects of different hemostatic agents upon the outcome of periapical surgery.A retrospective study was made of patients subjected to periapical surgery between 2006-2009 with the ultrasound technique and using MTA as retrograde filler material. We included patients with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, divided into two groups according to the hemostatic agent used: A) dressings impregnated in anesthetic solution with adrenalin; or B) aluminum chloride paste (Expasyl). Radiological controls were made after 6 and 12 months, and on the last visit. The global evolution scale proposed by von Arx and Kurt (1999) was used to establish the outcome of periapical surgery.A total of 96 patients (42 males and 54 females) with a mean age of 40.7 years were included. There were 50 patients in the aluminum chloride group and 46 patients in the anesthetic solution with vasoconstrictor group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of outcome after 12 months - the success rate being 58.6% and 61.7% in the anesthetic solution with vasoconstrictor and aluminum chloride groups, respectively (p > 0.05).The outcome after 12 months of follow-up was better in the aluminum chloride group than in the anesthetic solution with vasoconstrictor group, though the difference was not significant.
To report 20 cases with implant periapical pathology diagnosed during the osseointegration phase, evaluating retrospectively the efficacy of the treatment with implant periapical surgery.A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients in whom implant periapical surgery was performed between 1996 and 2010. The criteria for diagnosing implant periapical pathology and, accordingly, performing implant periapical surgery were: (1) acute pain during the osseointegration period (8 weeks after implant placement) located in the area of the affected implant or presence of mucous fistula in relation with the implant apex; (2) absence of implant mobility; (3) non-dull percussion of nonsubmerged implants; and (4) presence or absence of implant periapical radiolucency.Twenty-two implants were diagnosed with periapical pathology in 20 patients (13 women and 7 men) with a mean age of 54.3 years (range, 32 to 70 years) and were consecutively treated by a surgical approach. In 19 implants, the diagnosis was acute apical peri-implantitis (nonsuppurated in 7 cases and suppurated in 12), as based on the symptoms and radiographic sign, and in 3 cases it was subacute apical peri-implantitis, as based on the presence of a fistula. After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, 20 implants remained functional, with no clinical or radiologic alterations; the survival rate of the treated implants was 91%.The early diagnosis of inflammatory implant periapical lesions during the osseintegration phase, and their prompt surgical treatment, led to a survival rate of the treated implants of 91%.
The aim of this study was to compare the survival of implants placed in mature bone with the survival of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the same patients.A retrospective study of patients treated simultaneously with at least one immediate and one nonimmediate implant was carried out for the period 2005 to 2008. Data were recorded for patient age and sex; implant length, diameter, and position; and, for postextraction implants, distance between the implant and the alveolar bone.One thousand twenty-two implants were placed in 150 patients; 480 were placed immediately and 542 were placed in mature bone. The mean implant survival rate was 93.4%; survival rates were 93.8% for immediate implants and 93.2% for nonimmediate implants. The failure rate in the maxilla was 5.2% and in the mandible it was 2.8%. The failure rate for immediate implants in the posterior maxilla was 8.5%, which was statistically significantly higher than for implants placed elsewhere. Of the failed implants, 72% were early failures.The survival rate of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets was similar to that of implants placed in mature bone. A statistically significantly higher failure rate was seen with immediate implants placed in the posterior maxilla.