Khalid Gufran

Background and Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the amount of interdental bone loss between early and immediate implant placements. Materials and Methods: A total of 16 immediate implants and 16 early implants radiographs were included in the current research. The bone level was assessed at two different stages: at the extraction appointment (T1) and after three to six months of implant placement (T2). A line was drawn from the cemento-enamel junction connecting adjacent teeth to the interdental line connecting the interdental alveolar crest at both stages. The difference between measurements in the T1 and T2 stages is the bone loss measurement for the early implant group. For the immediate implant placement sites, the measurements were taken from the interdental bone crest to the implant platform level. Results: A Mann–Whitney U test was performed to evaluate the differences between both groups. The descriptive statistics of the T1 and T2 stages for both groups suggest that the bone loss in the T2 stage was generally higher than T1 stage. The immediate implant group showed higher bone loss compared to the early implant group. Moreover, there was significantly higher bone loss (p = 0.039) in the immediate implant group compared to the early implant group. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that immediate implant might have disadvantages over early implant in terms of bone loss after the extraction of maxillary and mandibular molar teeth.

Background and Objectives: The most common treatment procedure for periodontitis and gingivitis is scaling and root planing, which is perceived as a painful dental treatment. The current study aimed to assess pain perception and analgesics consumption after scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with stage II and stage III periodontitis. Materials and Methods: Before starting the SRP, all the periodontal parameters, such as probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment level (CAL), were measured. The anxiety level of the patients was also assessed using the modified dental anxiety scale (MDAS) questionnaire. Pain perception of the patients was recorded with the visual analog scale (VAS) after performing the SRP. Patients were asked to mark their pain level on the VAS sheet after two hours, four hours, eight hours, 24 h, and 48 h after the periodontal treatment. The following cut-off points were used for the pain intensity in the VAS: 0 = no pain, 1–4 = mild pain, 4–6 = moderate pain, and 7–10 = severe pain. Patients were advised to take analgesics if the pain was intolerable. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to conduct the association of all dependent variables and the pain perception of patients. A nonparametric Friedman test was conducted to assess pain perception at different times. Results: A total of 52 patients including 32 males and 20 females participated in the current study, with a mean age of 43.10 ± 12.33 years. Multivariate analyses showed that MDAS and analgesic consumption is significantly associated with pain perception. Other clinical variables are not associated with pain perception. The Friedman test exhibited that pain perception is significantly associated (p < 0.05) with time. Conclusions: Analgesic consumption and anxiety level are significantly associated with pain perception after SRP treatment.