May 9, 2026: This article published in Early View in error. The corrected article will republish shortly.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this publication is to report on the 12-month clinical and radiographic results comparing the surgical use of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser (ERL) and minimally invasive surgical technique (MIST) for the treatment of intrabony defects in subjects with generalized periodontitis stage III, grade B. METHODS Fifty-three adult subjects (29 females and 24 males; 19-73 years) with 79 intrabony defects were randomized following scaling and root planing (SRP) to receive ERL monotherapy (n = 27) or MIST (n = 26). Fifty subjects completed the study. Recession (REC), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), treatment time, and standardized radiographs were assessed and compared for each treatment group. Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline, 4-6 weeks following SRP, and 6 and 12 months following surgical therapy. Radiographic results were compared to baseline at 6 and 12 months following surgical therapy. RESULTS The following primary and secondary outcome variables were non-inferior with the following margins: CAL with a non-inferiority margin of 0.7 mm (p = 0.05), PD with a non-inferiority margin of 0.7 mm (p = 0.05), and REC with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4 mm (p = 0.05). Standardized radiographs suggest similar bone fill of 1.14 ± 1.73 mm for MIST and 1.12 ± 1.52 mm for ERL. CONCLUSIONS This is the first multicenter, randomized, masked, and controlled study demonstrating the ERL is not inferior to MIST at 12 months in terms of clinical outcomes and similar to MIST in terms of radiographic bone fill for the surgical treatment of intrabony defects.
This prospective study assessed the dual-curing self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative Surefil one. The restorations were placed and reviewed by dental practitioners who are members of a practice-based research network in the United States. Seven practitioners filled 60 cavities (20 class I, 19 class II and 21 class V) in 41 patients with Surefil one without adhesive, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Patients were also contacted to report postoperative hypersensitivity one to four weeks after placement. The only patient that showed moderate hypersensitivity after 1 year had previously reported symptoms that were unlikely associated to the class I molar restoration. One class II restoration in a fractured maxillary molar was partially lost. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition resulting in an annual failure rate of 2%. Color match showed the lowest number of acceptable scores (88%) revealing significant changes over time (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were found for the other criteria (P > 0.05). The novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed clinically acceptable results in stress-bearing class I and II as well as non-retentive class V cavities at 1-year recall.
BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to investigate the inter- and intra-examiner agreement among international experts on the diagnosis of gingival recession defects using the 2018 Classification of Gingival Recession Defects and Gingival Phenotype as proposed in the 2017 World Workshop. METHODS:Standardized intraoral photographs from 28 gingival recession defects were evaluated twice by 16 expert periodontists. Recession type (RT), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT), detectability of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and presence of root steps (RS) were recorded and used for the analysis. Intra- and inter-examiner agreements were calculated for individual variables and for the overall classification. Intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% CI was used for RD and KTW; Kappa with 95% CI was used for GT, CEJ, and RS; quadratic weighted Kappa with 95% CI was used for RT. RESULTS:Overall intra- and inter-examiner agreements were highest for KTW (0.95 and 0.90), lowest for GT (0.75 and 0.41), with the other variables in between (RD: 0.93 and 0.68, RS: 0.87 and 0.65, RT: 0.79 and 0.64, CEJ: 0.75 and 0.57). Overall intra- and inter-examiner agreements for the matrix were 62% and 28%, respectively. Significant effects existed between one variable's measurement and other variables' agreements. CONCLUSIONS:The 2018 Classification of Gingival Recession Defects and Gingival Phenotype is clinically reproducible within the examiners, and when the variables forming the matrix are analyzed individually. The between-examiner agreement for the complete matrix showed lower reproducibility. The agreement was highest for KTW and RD, and least for GT.
