View clinical trials related to Tooth Loss.
Filter by:IBD patients have a higher risk of oral diseases that affect the oral mucosa, the teeth and the tooth supporting tissues. These conditions are often associated with pain, bleeding and impaired masticatory function which may have an impact on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). However, few studies have investigated the self-evaluation of oral quality of life in IBD patients. The rare existing studies focus on very specific patients (elderly patients, patients with stomas) and do not use validated tools for the evaluation of OHRQoL. We also lack data on the effect of treatments such as immunosuppressants and type of IBD on OHRQoL. The aim of this study is to (i) compare oral quality of life in a cohort of IBD patients versus non-IBD patients and (ii) explore potential factors that influence oral quality of life in IBD
Comparing bonded space maintainers to banded space maintainers
The purpose of this study is to assess the outcome of a new bone level tapered implant when inserted either following an immediate placement protocol or an early placement approach and restored with single crowns out of two different ceramic materials adhesively cemented on a titanium bonding base.
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND The periodontal risk assessment method proposed by the University of Ferrara (namely, the PerioRisk; Trombelli et al. 2009) has been retrospectively validated and has been shown as a promising tool for tailoring supportive periodontal care. No information on its efficacy on psychological outcomes, however, is currently available. AIMS The primary aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of communicating periodontal risk level (as assessed with the PerioRisk tool) on psychological outcomes (i.e, patient consciousness and propensity to adhere to treatment instructions) in subjects who have been programmed for first periodontal consultation. The secondary aims of the study are (i) to comparatively evaluate the level of consciousness and propensity to adhere to treatment instructions in patients without a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis (as evaluated after communication of their periodontal risk level) and patients with a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis (as evaluated before their periodontal consultation); and (ii) to comparatively evaluate oral hygiene levels in patients who have received information on their diagnosis, treatment plan, oral hygiene instructions and treatment goals with or without the support of PerioRisk. MATERIALS & METHODS Eighty patients (40 without a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis, NTLP; 40 with a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis, TLP) will be recruited at 2 centers and randomly assigned to receive test or control treatment. Therefore, each of the two treatment groups (test and control) will incorporate two subgroups (NTLP and TLP) of 20 patients each. For each participant, the experimental phase of the study will consist of three observation intervals: T0 (verification of the eligibility criteria, patient allocation to treatment; T1 (performed within 3 months from T0 for assessment of clinical parameters, treatment administration, and administration of questionnaires before and after treatment; T2 (performed at 8-12 weeks after T1 for the assessment of clinical parameters). At T1, following routine periodontal clinical assessment and questionnaire completion, patients will receive test or control treatment according to the randomization list. Test treatment will consist of a single session structured as follows: (i) information on periodontal diagnosis; (ii) information on periodontal risk level (as calculated with the PerioRisk tool) and profile (i.e., the magnitude of the contribution of each PerioRisk parameter to generate the patient risk level); (iii) information on treatment plan and oral hygiene instructions, with emphasis to treatment goals based on the PerioRisk output. Control treatment will consist in a single session structured as follows: (i) information on periodontal diagnosis; (ii) information on treatment plan and oral hygiene instructions, and treatment goals. Although the general concept of risk of periodontitis incidence/progression will be explained, no mention will be made to the patient risk level (as calculated with PerioRisk or any other tool) when administering control treatment. Two operators will be trained to administer test and control treatments in approximately 8', but time for treatment administration will be extended for additional questions and answers whenever needed by the patient. Total time for treatment administration will be recorded. Patients will be administered the following battery of psychological questionnaires: (i) Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Watson et al. 1988); (ii) Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) questionnaire (Conner & Norman 2005); (iii) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A/D) (Zigmond & Snaith 1983). While HADS-A/D will be used to screen out patients with clinical anxiety/ depression before treatment administration, PANAS and PMT will be completed either immediately before and immediately after treatment administration.
As part of post-marketing clinical follow-up, BIOTECH DENTAL sets up the collection and evaluation of clinical data proactively with the aim of confirming the safety, performance as well as the constantly acceptable nature of the risks identified and of detecting potential emerging risks with the use of "Kontact Perio Level" implants in everyday practice.
immediate implant placement with VST technique versus early implant placement with contour augmentation in fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone.
Evaluation of the effect of laser with piezo-surgical device in dental implants
Periodontal diseases are infections cause by dental plaque (Socransky, 1970). Risk factors are present which modify the course of disease progression. One of these risk factors is tobacco smoking, which was first evaluated by Pindborg in 1947 and later by Grossi et al. in 1995. They found that tobacco smoking was strongly associated with attachment loss, bone loss, and lastly, tooth loss. Tooth loss in one of the most visible results of periodontal disease, which negatively affects physiological and psychological patient's life. The effects of cigarette smoking on periodontal status are independent of the plaque index and oral hygiene of the patient, due to the direct influence of tobacco on periodontal tissues. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of periodontal therapy in reducing the rate of tooth loss as well as the importance of patient compliance with periodontal maintenance therapy and adequate oral hygiene practice in achieving this reduction. Compliance is the main problem faced in periodontal maintenance therapy. Low rates of compliance and patient adherence to a maintenance program was reported in the literature. Periodontal maintenance therapy can be considered a critical factor for success in controlling periodontitis and in the long-term maintenance of teeth. In addition, neglecting a regular periodontal maintenance therapy program has been associated with increased risk of reinfection and progression of periodontitis, as well as increased tooth loss. The establishment of a criteria for time interval between different supportive periodontal maintenance visits, is still controversial. Smokers are associated with low level of compliance to prevent being constantly reminded of quitting smoking as well as the health complications associated with the habit. There is a void in the literature addressing the direct influence of compliance and adherence in periodontal maintenance therapy and its contribution to arrest periodontitis progression, minimizing tooth loss, specifically in tobacco smoking patients, whether they are regular or irregular compliant with a long term follow-up up to 40 years. On the other hand, there is moderate scientific evidence that the independent effect of smoking is associated with the occurrence of tooth loss in individuals undergoing periodontal maintenance therapy. Lastly, only very few studies reported the specific outcome of periodontal maintenance therapy on tooth loss in regular and irregular compliant smokers compared to regular and irregular compliant non-smokers. The focused question in this study is "Does periodontal maintenance therapy affect annual tooth loss rates differently in regular and irregular compliant smokers and non-smokers?".
This study aims to assess the treatment outcomes (clinical, functional and subjective) of full arch rehabilitations supported by implants with or without an immediate loading protocol. In this randomized clinical trial 20 fully edentulous patients were treated with full arch rehabilitations on dental implants. In half of the sample, the implants were loaded immediately by means of abutments after emplacement of the implant; but in the counterparts these abutments were connected to implants two months after the surgery (conventional protocol), and until that time the dentures were retained by healing abutments. Treatment outcomes were assessed at 2, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical outcomes were quantified on the basis of implant failure rate, marginal bone loss and the peri-implant gingival index. Functional outcomes were calculated according to masticatory performance, estimated by the mixed fraction of a two-coloured chewing gum after 5, 10 and 15 chewing strokes, by the occlusal force recorded by pressure-sensitive sheets and by the bioelectrical muscular activity. The subjective outcomes of the treatment were assessed using both the oral satisfaction scale (visual analogue scale) and the Spanish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20).
Intraoral oral scanning significantly improves scanning accuracy compared to digitized conventional impression techniques. The digitized closed tray impression technique showed significantly more accurate results than the digitized open-tray impression technique in partially edentulous patients.