Periodontal health in teeth treated with deep-margin-elevation and CAD/CAM partial lithium disilicate restorations-a prospective controlled trial.

IF 3.1 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Investigations Pub Date : 2024-11-30 DOI:10.1007/s00784-024-06053-y

Tim Hausdörfer, Clemens Lechte, Philipp Kanzow, Tina Rödig, Annette Wiegand

{"title":"Periodontal health in teeth treated with deep-margin-elevation and CAD/CAM partial lithium disilicate restorations-a prospective controlled trial.","authors":"Tim Hausdörfer, Clemens Lechte, Philipp Kanzow, Tina Rödig, Annette Wiegand","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-06053-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This prospective controlled clinical trial aimed to compare periodontal parameters of proximal deep-margin-elevation (DME) restoration margins with supragingival/equigingival restoration margins (control) on the opposite proximal surface of the same tooth.Materials and methods: Subgingival one-sided proximal defects (mesial or distal) on (pre-)molars were restored with composite DME and CAD/CAM-manufactured lithium disilicate ceramic partial-coverage restorations. Periodontal parameters (bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal probing depths (PPD), plaque index (PI)) were recorded after insertion of the ceramic restoration (baseline) and at 1-year recall visit and compared between DME and control on the same tooth (Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.05).Results: Sixty-eight patients with 77 restorations were included. At baseline, periodontal parameters did not differ between DME and control. Sixty-two restorations could be examined after 1 year. BOP was significantly increased for DME (padj. = 0.003), but not for control (padj. = 0.714). Surfaces with DME showed a significantly higher proportion of BOP than control surfaces (DME: 45 restorations (73.8%), control: 27 restorations (44.3%); padj. = 0.005). PI increased significantly on all tooth surfaces (padj.<0.001), but did not differ between DME and control side (padj. = 0.162). Probing depths did not differ between baseline and follow-up (DME: padj. = 0.199, control: padj. = 0.116). Two restorations were replaced due to a ceramic fracture and secondary caries.Conclusion: Proximal DME is associated with increased gingival inflammation compared to supragingival or equigingival restoration margins.Clinical relevance: DME is a promising treatment approach for indirect restoration of teeth with deep proximal defects, but gingival inflammation should be expected.","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 12","pages":"670"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06053-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This prospective controlled clinical trial aimed to compare periodontal parameters of proximal deep-margin-elevation (DME) restoration margins with supragingival/equigingival restoration margins (control) on the opposite proximal surface of the same tooth.

Materials and methods: Subgingival one-sided proximal defects (mesial or distal) on (pre-)molars were restored with composite DME and CAD/CAM-manufactured lithium disilicate ceramic partial-coverage restorations. Periodontal parameters (bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal probing depths (PPD), plaque index (PI)) were recorded after insertion of the ceramic restoration (baseline) and at 1-year recall visit and compared between DME and control on the same tooth (Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.05).

Results: Sixty-eight patients with 77 restorations were included. At baseline, periodontal parameters did not differ between DME and control. Sixty-two restorations could be examined after 1 year. BOP was significantly increased for DME (p_adj. = 0.003), but not for control (p_adj. = 0.714). Surfaces with DME showed a significantly higher proportion of BOP than control surfaces (DME: 45 restorations (73.8%), control: 27 restorations (44.3%); p_adj. = 0.005). PI increased significantly on all tooth surfaces (p_adj.<0.001), but did not differ between DME and control side (p_adj. = 0.162). Probing depths did not differ between baseline and follow-up (DME: p_adj. = 0.199, control: p_adj. = 0.116). Two restorations were replaced due to a ceramic fracture and secondary caries.

Conclusion: Proximal DME is associated with increased gingival inflammation compared to supragingival or equigingival restoration margins.

Clinical relevance: DME is a promising treatment approach for indirect restoration of teeth with deep proximal defects, but gingival inflammation should be expected.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

5.90%

发文量

484

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.