Browsing by Author "Hakam, Abeer"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Airflowing as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial
(2024) Alsuwaidi, Salem; Shah, Maanas; Hakam, Abeer; Atieh, Momen A
Abstract Background: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. Methods: Twenty-six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring non surgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3- and 6-months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants’ perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months. Results: A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5mmatthe 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF:14.3±14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ±20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved.
Alveolar ridge preservation versus early implant placement in single non-molar sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis
(2024) Atieh, Momen A.; Shah, Maanas; Hakam, Abeer; AlAli, Fawaghi; Aboushakra, Ibrahim
Abstract Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) following extraction of non-molar teeth in comparison to early implant placement (EIP) in terms of clinical and radiographic changes, need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, patient-reported outcomes, and implant failure rate. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared ARP to EIP. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. Results: A total of 106 studies were identified, of which five studies with 198 non molar extraction sockets in 198 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed significant differences in changes in midfacial mucosal margin (mean difference (MD) −0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to −0.01; p= .03) and ridge width (MD −1.70; 95% CI −3.19 to −0.20; p= .03) in favor of ARP. The use of ARP was also associated with less need for additional augmentation at implant placement, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Within the limitation of this review, ARP following extraction of non molar teeth has short-term positive effects on soft tissue contour, mucosal margin and thickness, and alveolar ridge width and height. It can also simplify future implant treatment by minimizing the need for additional augmentation
Systemic azithromycin versus amoxicillin/metronidazole as an adjunct in the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
(2024) Atieh, Momen; Shah, Maanas; Hakam, Abeer; Alghafri, Meera
Background: The use of systemic azithromycin (AZT) and amoxicillin/metronidazole (AMX/MTZ) as adjuncts provided additional clinical and microbiological benefits over subgingival instrumentation alone. However, the superiority of one antibiotic regimen over another has not been proven. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of subgingival instrumentation (SI) in conjunction with the systemic use ofAZT or AMX/MTZ for the treatment of periodontitis from current published literature. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective human studies that compared the adjunctive use of systemic AZT to AMX/MTZ with SI in the treatment of periodontitis. The eligibility criteria were defined based on the participant (who had periodontitis), intervention (SI with adjunctive use of systemic AZT), comparison (SI with adjunctive use of systemic AMX/MTZ), out-comes (primary outcome: changes in probing pocket). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. Results: Five studies with 151 participants with periodontitis were included in the present review. Of these, 74 participants received adjunctive AZT, while the remaining participants received AMX/MTZ as an adjunct to SI. The adjunctive use of AZT and AMX/MTZ had comparable changes in probing pocket depths at 1–3 months with no statistically significant difference (mean difference (MD) 0.01; 95% CI–0.20 to 0.22;P=0.94). The adjunctive use of AZT had significantly fewer number of residual sites with probing pocket depths of≥5mmat1–3 months compared to the adjunctive use of AMX/MTZ (MD–3.41; 95% CI–4.73 to–2.10;P<0.0001). The prevalence rates of adverse events among participants who received AZT and AMX/MTZ were 9.80% and 14.8%, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.72;P=0.43). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this review, there was no superiority between AZT and AMX/MTZ in terms of mean changes in probing pocket depths, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing at 1–3 months. AZT seem to be associated with less sites with residual probing pocket depths of≥5mmat1–3 months and fewer adverse events com-pared with AMX/MTZ.©2023 Australian Dental Association.
Systemic azithromycin vs. amoxicillin/metronidazole as an adjunct in the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
(2024) Atieh, Momen A.; Shah, Maanas; Hakam, Abeer; Alghafri, Meera
Introduction: Test your knowledge by first reading the article, then go to www.ada.org.au. Log on to the members site and click on Professional Information. Under Publications, follow the links to this month’s Quiz. Select the option that you think provides the best answer to each question. Click ‘Done’ and in an instant you’ll know how you scored. Remember to print out a copy of your score for your records. Completion of this quiz entitles you to 1 CPD hour. Please note the Editorial Office does not accept hard copies of completed questionnaires. The Quiz must be completed online and a printed copy of your results retained for CPD audit purposes.