Vol 21 No. 1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 21(1), 2009 Prevalence and distribution ….. debris and dental plaque and cause bone destruction, lead to root surface exposure in addition to incorrect traumatic tooth brushing. These surfaces with gingival recession are less favorable to self cleansing, lead to formation of root caries. This indicated that interproximal and buccal surfaces are the most frequent site affected by gingival recession and this was in agreement with that found by Albander and Kingman (5) , Marlivia and Watanabe (2) , Pimenta et al (19) . Regarding root caries, this study found that 18.5 % of the subjects affected by root caries. The Root Cries Index proposed by Katz (20) compete a true attack rate for root caries. Results of this study found that root caries prevalence and root caries index was lower than that found by MacEntee etal (15) and Imazato etal (13) . This was due to variation in the sample, the country where the study was conducted, their habits and environments. The prevalence of root caries was found to be increased with increasing age of the people and results of this study was in agreement with that found by Katz etal (20) , regarding prevalence of root caries, while in case of Root caries index, results of this study was in agreement with that found by MacEntee etal (15) , and Imazato etal (13) . Root caries was seen most frequently on roots of molar teeth and this was in agreement with that found by Imazato etal (13) . Exposed root caries will develop root caries and the increase in prevalence of root caries in the manifestation of gingival recession. The increasing prevalence of root caries with increasing age is an indicator of increased root exposure to the oral environment. This study concluded that these alterations could increase among population so it is important to conduct oral dental health care. Programs including dental health education and periodontal health care in addition to fluoride preventive measures to control this increase. and older in the United States 1988–1994. National Institute of dental and craniofacial research, National Institute of health. J. 6. Khocht A, Simon G, Person P, Denepitiya J. Gingival recession in relation to history of hard tooth brush use. J Periodontal 1993; 74 (9): 900–5. 7. Joshipura KJ, Kent RL, Depaola PF. Gingival recession: intra–oral distribution and associated factors. J Periodontal 1994; 65 ( 9 ): 864–71 8. Vehkalahti M. Occurrence of gingival recession in adults. J Periodontol 1989; 60: 599. 9. Checchi, L, Daprile, G, Gatto, MRA, Pelliccioni A. Gingival recession and tooth brushing in an Italian school of Dentistry: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26 (5): 276–80. 10. Martinez–Canut P, Lorca A, Magan R. Smoking and periodontal disease severity. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22 (10):734–49. 11. Beck JD, Kock GG. Characteristics of older adults experiencing periodontal attachment loss as gingival recession or probing depth. J Periodontal Res 1994; 29 (4): 290–8. 12. Ainamo J, Paloheimo L, Nordblad A, Murtomaa H. Gingival recession in school children at 7 , 12 and 17 years of age in Espoo , Finland. Community Dentoral Epidemiol 1986; 14: 283–6 13. Imazato S, ikebe K, Nokubi T, Ebisu S, Walls AWG. Prevalence of root caries in a selected population of older adult in Japan. J Oral Rehab 2006; 33 (2): 137–43. 14. Hellyer, Beighton et al. Root caries in older people attending a general dental practice in East Sussex. Brit Dent J 1990; 169 (7): 201–6. 15. MacEntee Clark DC, Glick N. Predictors of caries in old age. Gerodontology 1993; 10: 90–7. 16. Miller JRPD. A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1985; 5 (2): 8–13 17. Marini MG, Greghi SLA, Passane E, Passane AC, Ana S. Gingival recession: prevalence, extension and severity in adult. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12 (3). 18. Kallestal C, Matsson L, Holm AK. Periodontal conditions in a group of Swedish adolescents (1): a descriptive epidemiologic study. J Periodontol 1990; 17: 601–8. 19. Pimenta LA, Ritter A, Beck J. Predictors of root caries in older adults in US, 2008. (Medline abst.). 20. Katz RV, Newitter DA, Clive JM. Root caries prevalence in adult dental patients. J Dent Res 1985; 64: 293. REFRENCES 1. Gupta B, Marya CM, Juneja V, Dahiya V. Root caries: An aging problem. Int J Dent Science 2007; 5 (1). 2. Marlivia, Watanabe. Root caries prevalence in a group of Brazilian adult dental patients. Braz Dent J 2003; 14 (3). 3. Serino G, Wennstrom JL, Eneroth L. The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession in subjects with a high standard of oral hygiene. J Clin periodontol 1994; 21 (1): 57 63. 4. Ericsson I, Lindhe J. Recession in sites with inadequate width of the keratinized gingiva. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1984; 11 (2): 95– 103. 5. Albandar JM, Kingman A. Gingival recession, gingival bleeding and dental calculus in adults 30 years of age Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontology 87
J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 21(1), 2009 The effect of locally ….. The effect of locally applied ciprofloxacin on the incidence rate of dry socket Emad A. Salman, B.D.S., M.Sc (1) Jabbar J. Sabur, B.D.S., M.Sc. (1) ABSTRACT Background: Dry socket is a common and unpleasant local complication following the extraction and surgical removal of teeth. This study was constructed to prevent or minimize this post operative complication. Material and Methods: 81 patients were involved in this study, divided into two groups, an experimental group: the extraction socket was irrigated intra and immediate postoperatively with 0.5ml/ socket Ciprofloxacin, and a control group: the extraction site was irrigated in the same manner with normal saline. Results: A total of 5 dry sockets were developed in this study, one case in the experimental group, and four cases in the control group. The incidence rate of dry socket in the experimental group was 2.4% while in the control group was 10%. Conclusion: Although the incidence rate of dry socket was reduced from 10% in the control group to 2.4% in the experimental group, but the statistical analysis showed no significant effect for the Ciprofloxacin in the reduction of dry socket. Keywords: Dry socket, Ciprofloxacin, incidence, prevention. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2009; 21(1): 88-90) INTRODUCTION Dry socket is a rather common and very unpleasant local complication of the extraction or the surgical removal of teeth. The clinical picture of the disease is well known and was first described in 1890. Two or three days after the removal of the tooth, disintegration of the normal blood clot occur, the alveolus is empty, with completely or partially denuded, very sensitive bone surfaces, covered by grayish-yellow layer of detritus and necrotic tissue. The surrounding gingiva often shows inflammatory reaction. The patient complains of intense, continuous and often irradiating pain of neuralgic character. Halitosis is pronounced and the patient complains of bad (1, 15, 17) taste. Dry socket developed in 2% - 4.4% of all extractions of permanent teeth (1) . It developed in 2% of cases following simple extraction, in 7.3% of cases after surgical extractions, and 23% of cases following surgical extractions of mandibular third molars (15, 10) . Dry socket occurs most frequently in the age group of 20–40 years (1) . The etiology and pathogenesis of dry socket are only inadequately known, and the wide array of suggested risk factors indicates this fact (1, 5, 7) . Inflammation triggered high fibrinolytic activity in and around the alveolus is believed to be the underlying pathology that causes blood clot dissolution and the release of kinins responsible for the characteristic neuralgic pain in dry socket. (1-3) . (1) Assistant lecturer, Dept. of oral and maxillofacial surgery, college of dentistry, university of Baghdad. A possible role for bacterial infection in the etiology of dry socket has been suggested by Birn (1) , Kay's (12) and Rud's (16) findings of high incidence rates of dry socket following the removal of mandibular third molars with pericoronitis also suggest a possible role for bacterial infection in the etiology of dry socket. The higher bacterial counts, which continued to rise during the first postoperative hours, isolated from the wound, and saliva of the patients who developed dry socket following mandibular third molars surgical removal, and the lower counts isolated in patients who did not developed the condition also point to a possible role for bacterial infection in the etiology of dry socket (4) . Because of the proposed microbial origin, prevention of dry socket has focused on systemic and topical antimicrobial therapy, Lincomycine, Tetracycline, Crystalline Penicillin, Chlorhexidine in different regimens has been used with varying degree of success. (7-9,11,13) . Ciprofloxacin is a flourquinolone that was first approved for systemic infections in 1988. Like other quinolones, Ciprofloxacin is an inhibitor of bacterial gyrases (topoisomerases I and II). It is rapidly bactericidal and is effective against a wide range of bacteria (14) . The mean concentration of Ciprofloxacin in bones of patients with osteomyelitis reached (1 mcg/g) and (1.4 +-1 mcg/g) following single oral doses of 500mg and 750mg. respectively (6) . As a new agent the therapeutic uses of Ciprofloxacin remain unsettled. Currently none of the quinolones are indicated for dental use, however Ciprofloxacin has a spectrum of activity that includes selected pathogens of the oral cavity (14) . Tozum and others Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontology 88
Page 1 and 2:
Scientific Journal Published by the
Page 3 and 4:
Contents i ii vi Editor and Editori
Page 5 and 6:
Instruction for the Authors The Jou
Page 7 and 8:
J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 21(1)
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
J Bagh College Dentistry Vol.21(1),
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42: J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 21(1)
Page 47 and 48: J Bagh College Dentistry Vol.21(1),
Page 91: J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 21(1)
show all

Vol 21 No. 1

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?