Loss of attachment was documented in no cases from the control, i.e. non-extractive, group.
Inflammation and loss of attachment around dental implants (i.e. peri-implantitis) has become a growing concern within the field of dental implantology [1 7].
Recession is of concern to patients who view the loss of attachment as a health issue as well as an esthetic problem.
The loss of attachment might be due to an imbalanced shear force caused by the uneven evaporation of solvent during the dehydration process.
Various studies have noted a greater loss of attachment in treated (with or without extraction) with respect to untreated patients [2, 3, 33].
The mean loss of attachment in our study group (the distance from the CEJ to the base of the defect) was 0.9 mm in the teeth adjacent to the extraction site.
Several conflicting findings have been published in previous literature regarding the effects of impacted third molar extraction on the periodontal health of the adjacent second molar; some authors have shown improvement of periodontal health distal to the adjacent second molar, whilst others have demonstrated loss of attachment and reduction of alveolar bone height.
Nevertheless, it is recognized that a loss of attachment can occur when the distance between the CEJ and the bone is greater than the mean values in the periodontally healthy population (i.e. when it is greater than 2 mm) [31, 32].
Even though, on average, the distances between the CEJ and the defect base and between the CEJ and the bone peak are under the critical 2 mm in the study group, when these were greater than 2 mm, loss of attachment did occur at the sites under investigation, i.e. around 20% of cases.
The grief response, especially of the youngest children, provided clear evidence of loss of attachment to childcare givers and their supervisors, including Anna Freud.
