No abstract

No abstract

It is well known that cracked teeth occur most frequently in the mandibular molars with large or poor restorations, in those over 50 years of age. However, with increasing knowledge and experience with cracks of teeth, cracks appear to be found frequently in intact teeth without restorations. The aim of this study is to analyze the cases of tooth cracks in a dental hospital in a year, and to find out the characteristic features of cracks of teeth. For 1 year, each tooth that were identified as a cracked tooth was recorded and analyzed in terms of the classification of cavity and restorative material, the nature of opposing tooth, the location in the arch, the age and gender, and the clinical signs and symptoms, and treatment result. Cracked teeth were observed most frequently in the teeth with no restorations (60.4%) and with class I restorations (29.2%). The most prevalent age was in those over 40 years of age (31.2% in their 40s, 26.6% in their 50s) and the prevalence was similar in men (53.9%) and women (46.1%). Cracked teeth were found most frequently in the maxillary molars (33.8% in first molar, 23.4% in second molar) than in the mandibular molars (20.1% in first molar, 16.2% in second molar). 96.1% of the cracked teeth responded to the bite test, and 81.1% of the cracked teeth were observed in the mesiodistal direction. The prevalence of cracked tooth was highest in the intact teeth with no restoration, in maxillary molars, and in those over 40 years of age. When examining a intact maxillary posterior tooth that is sensitive to a bite and thermal change, crack in the mesiodistal direction need to be considered one of the causes.

Distances from the apex to the buccal bone plate were measured on the computed tomography (CT) images of 1806 teeth from 66 patients, using an image analyzer program (Image-Pro Plus, Ver. 4.0, Media Cybernetics). In the mandible, the mean distance from the distal apex of the mandibular second molar to the buccal bone plate was the largest distance measured, at 8.51 mm, followed by distance from the mesial root to the buccal bone (7.34 mm). In the mandibular first molar, the mean distal and mesial bone thicknesses were 5.18 mm and 4.09 mm, respectively. However, when there were two distal roots, the distance of the disto-lingual root to the buccal plate was found to be 9.52 mm, which constitutes the greatest measured thickness. In the maxillary buccal roots, the distances from the mesio-buccal and disto-buccal root of the second molar to the buccal bone plate were the largest, at 4.63 mm and 3.61 mm, respectively. The average distances from the palatal apex of the maxillary first and second molars to the buccal bone plate were 10.69 mm and 10.17 mm, respectively, while, from the palatal bone plate, average distances of 3.15 mm and 3.08 mm were measured. Special considerations, such as bony lid approach, lingual approach, or intentional replantation may be required, especially when a patient has a surgical need in the second molars and the disto-lingual root of the mandibular first molar, or in the palatal root of the maxillary molars.

Group II (167.4 ± 76.4 μm) had a smaller overall mean gap, which included the marginal and internal gap measurements, than that of Group I (184.8 ± 89.0 μm). The internal gaps were larger than the marginal gaps, regardless of preparation design. Group I presented a thinner ceramic thickness in the cusp capping areas than the minimum occlusal ceramic thickness parameter of 1.5 mm. CONCLUSION. Preparation design had an influence on fit, particularly the internal gap of the PCCs. Ceramic thickness could be thinner than the minimum ceramic thickness parameter.