{"title":"测量臼齿根干长度以评估冠延长可能性的两种方法的比较研究:平行于根面测量与平行于牙轴测量","authors":"Vittawin Dechosilpa, Thanaporn Chosivasakul, Thanatcha Munkongdee, Manita Phoamporn, Apinporn Pongpornprot, Chutiya Sriworakul, Anek Chayasadom","doi":"10.11607/prd.5801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare root trunk measurements taken parallel to the tooth axis (TA) to those taken parallel to the root surface (RS) in order to assess the decision-making implications of each method on crown-lengthening surgery. A total of 672 root trunks were measured via CBCT in two planes: TA and RS. The possibility of performing crown lengthening in each clinical situation based on the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the crestal bone (CB) after ostectomy (CEJ-CB) was judged and compared between groups. When RS was used as a reference point, the proportions of cases that judged crown lengthening to be possible were 83.63%, 59.08%, and 39.18% for CEJ-CB values of 4, 5, and 6 mm, respectively. When TA was used instead, those proportions decreased by 3.87% to 7.29%. The lingual root trunk of the lower first molar (LFL) with a CEJ-CB of 4 to 5 mm emerged as the most problematic area; here, the difference between reference planes occurred with one out of every six teeth. Within the limits of this study, utilizing TA for surgical crown-lengthening treatment planning is not ideal because it may lead to extraction of many savable teeth.</p>","PeriodicalId":54948,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry","volume":"43 3","pages":"e141-e147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study of Two Ways to Measure Root Trunk Length to Assess the Possibility of Crown Lengthening in Molars: Measuring Parallel to the Root Surface vs Parallel to the Tooth Axis\",\"authors\":\"Vittawin Dechosilpa, Thanaporn Chosivasakul, Thanatcha Munkongdee, Manita Phoamporn, Apinporn Pongpornprot, Chutiya Sriworakul, Anek Chayasadom\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/prd.5801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare root trunk measurements taken parallel to the tooth axis (TA) to those taken parallel to the root surface (RS) in order to assess the decision-making implications of each method on crown-lengthening surgery. A total of 672 root trunks were measured via CBCT in two planes: TA and RS. The possibility of performing crown lengthening in each clinical situation based on the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the crestal bone (CB) after ostectomy (CEJ-CB) was judged and compared between groups. When RS was used as a reference point, the proportions of cases that judged crown lengthening to be possible were 83.63%, 59.08%, and 39.18% for CEJ-CB values of 4, 5, and 6 mm, respectively. When TA was used instead, those proportions decreased by 3.87% to 7.29%. The lingual root trunk of the lower first molar (LFL) with a CEJ-CB of 4 to 5 mm emerged as the most problematic area; here, the difference between reference planes occurred with one out of every six teeth. Within the limits of this study, utilizing TA for surgical crown-lengthening treatment planning is not ideal because it may lead to extraction of many savable teeth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"43 3\",\"pages\":\"e141-e147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.5801\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.5801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Study of Two Ways to Measure Root Trunk Length to Assess the Possibility of Crown Lengthening in Molars: Measuring Parallel to the Root Surface vs Parallel to the Tooth Axis
The aim of this study was to compare root trunk measurements taken parallel to the tooth axis (TA) to those taken parallel to the root surface (RS) in order to assess the decision-making implications of each method on crown-lengthening surgery. A total of 672 root trunks were measured via CBCT in two planes: TA and RS. The possibility of performing crown lengthening in each clinical situation based on the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the crestal bone (CB) after ostectomy (CEJ-CB) was judged and compared between groups. When RS was used as a reference point, the proportions of cases that judged crown lengthening to be possible were 83.63%, 59.08%, and 39.18% for CEJ-CB values of 4, 5, and 6 mm, respectively. When TA was used instead, those proportions decreased by 3.87% to 7.29%. The lingual root trunk of the lower first molar (LFL) with a CEJ-CB of 4 to 5 mm emerged as the most problematic area; here, the difference between reference planes occurred with one out of every six teeth. Within the limits of this study, utilizing TA for surgical crown-lengthening treatment planning is not ideal because it may lead to extraction of many savable teeth.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry will
publish manuscripts concerned with all aspects of clinical periodontology,
restorative dentistry, and implantology. This includes pertinent research
as well as clinical methodology (their interdependence and relationship
should be addressed where applicable); proceedings of relevant symposia
or conferences; and quality review papers. Original manuscripts are considered for publication on the condition that they have not been published
or submitted for publication elsewhere.