Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Osseous surgery: Traditional vs fiber retention resective surgery

*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Open access

Abstract

Periodontitis is a disease originating from bacteria in a susceptible host, in which a nonprotective, chronic inflammatory process results in the destruction of supporting soft and hard tissues surrounding the teeth, eventually causing the loss of dentition over time. The ultimate goal of periodontal treatment is to control the progression of periodontal disease. This is achieved by removing the causative factors and stopping progression of clinical attachment loss and ultimately preventing loss of teeth. Osseous resective surgery (ORS) is one of the treatment modalities used to gain access to the root surfaces and boney defects, visualize removal of plaque and calculus from the root surfaces, and reestablish proper bone and soft tissue contours in order to facilitate removal of plaque by the patient as well as dental professionals. Osseous resective surgery fiber retention (FibReORS) is another less commonly used variation of this resective approach. Although it has shown promising results, little research exists comparing the two approaches. The aim of this review is to revisit the dogma of traditional ORS and highlight the differences between the two surgical approaches in regard to clinical procedures, clinical outcomes, and patient's reported outcomes.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Article number

100050

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Dentistry Review (Volume 2, Issue 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 06/2022

Publication status

Published - 06/2022

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 105016003067

Publication metrics

Metrics

Fractional count
3
Fractional count
0.75
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.25
Fractional count
3
Fractional count
1
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
6
Citation count
1