Browsing by Author "Cochran, David L."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Assessment of Gingival Biotype and Keratinized Gingival Width of Maxillary Anterior Region in Individuals With Different Types of Malocclusion
(Aves Press Ltd, 2018) Alkan, Ozer; Kaya, Yesim; Alkan, Eylem A.; Keskin, Siddik; Cochran, David L.
Objective: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the relationship of gingival thickness and width of keratinized gingiva with different malocclusion groups and amount of crowding. Methods: A total of 181 periodontally healthy subjects were enrolled in the present study. The study participants were divided into three malocclusion groups: Angle Class I, Angle Class II, and Angle Class III.Each group was divided into subgroups according to the amount of dental crowding, namely mild, moderate, and severe. The width of keratinized gingiva was calculated as the distance between mucogingival junction and free gingival margin, whereas gingival thickness was determined by a transgingival probing technique. Results:Tooth numbers 13 and 23 were observed to have thin gingival biotype. The width of keratinized gingiva for tooth numbers 13 and 23 was narrower in the severe crowding group than in the moderate and mild crowding groups. The relationship of gingival thickness and width of keratinized gingiva with Angle classification was not found to be significant. Conclusion: Although it is thought that there is a relationship between gingival thickness, width of keratinized gingiva, and Angle classification with regard to malaligned teeth, this cross-sectional evaluation of 181 patients failed to show a significant relationship.
Prevalence of Dental Implants and Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Levels in Patients Presenting To a Dental School: a Radiographic Cross-Sectional 2-Year Study
(Quintessence Publishing Co inc, 2018) Alkan, Eylem Ayhan; Mau, Lian Ping; Schoolfield, John; Guest, Gary F.; Cochran, David L.
Purpose: To evaluate the number of patients with dental implants who present to a dental school clinic for screening and to report the prevalence of peri-implant bone level change detected on digital panoramic radiographs of those subjects. Materials and Methods: Patient screening files for 9,422 patients over a 2-year period were examined to see how many patients presented with dental implants. Those patients with at least one implant were further evaluated by measuring the bone level on the mesial and distal sides of the implant using the screening radiograph. Results: A total of 187 patients (2%) had at least one implant. In regard to implants, 423 were examined and 146 (33%) had no detectable bone loss defined as bone level below the top of the implant. When thresholds of bone loss were evaluated, 109 implants (25%) had >= 2 mm of bone loss on either the mesial or distal sides or both. The median bone loss was 1.74 mm for the 277 implants with detectable bone loss and 2.97 mm for the 109 implants that had >= 2 mm bone loss. Interestingly, patients who were >= 70 years of age had significantly (P = .03) more bone loss in the mandible compared with the maxilla, while patients who were 60 to 69 years of age had significantly greater loss in the maxilla. Conclusion: These data reveal that for patients presenting to the dental school for a screening over a 2-year period, 1.98% had one or more dental implants. Furthermore, those patients with implants had a minimum amount of bone loss as measured from the top of the implant.