Clinical Periodontal Response to Anterior All-Ceramic Crowns with Either Chamfer or Feather-edge Subgingival Tooth Preparations: Six-Month Results and Patient Perception

Paniz, Gianluca; Nart, José; Gobbato, Luca; Mazzocco, Fabio; Stellini, Edoardo; Simone, Giacomo De; Bressan, Eriberto

doi:10.11607/prd.2765

Cited by 26 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gingival margin changes have been associated with fixed prosthodontic procedures 80,81,83–90 . They can be linked to a variety of factors, including crown preparation and margin position, 80,91–93 gingival displacement and impressions, 81,84,94 provisional prostheses, 95 and luting agents 96…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

Ercoli

Tarnow

Poggio

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To search the literature and to critically evaluate the findings on the periodontal outcomes of restorations and tooth‐supported fixed prostheses. Materials and Methods PubMed was searched according to a systematic methodology, previously reported, but updated to include a larger database. Filters applied were: Case reports, clinical trial, review, guideline, randomized controlled trial, meta‐analysis, systematic reviews, and English. A narrative review was then synthesized to discuss periodontal outcomes related to restorations and tooth‐supported fixed prostheses. Relevant data was organized into four sections: Direct restorations, indirect restorations, biologic width or supracrestal tissue attachment and tooth preparation/finish line design. Results While increased gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss have been associated with subgingival restorations, intracrevicular margins do not cause periodontal diseases. Inflammation and bone loss occur, for both direct and indirect restorations, only with large overhangs. Different restorative materials are associated with different clinical responses when placed in the gingival sulcus or within the epithelial and connective tissue attachments. When the connective tissue attachment is removed, histological changes occur causing its apical shift and subsequent re‐establishment. Gingival displacement during impression procedures can cause gingival recession. Emergence profile can have a range of values, not associated with periodontal diseases. Periodontal response appears to be clinically not different when compared among different finish line designs. Conclusions Contemporary procedures and materials used for the placement and fabrication of tooth‐supported restorations and fixed prostheses are compatible with periodontal health when adequate patient education and motivation in self‐performed oral hygiene are present. Periodontal diagnostic criteria should be thoroughly reviewed before fixed restorative treatments are planned and executed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limited comparative evidence related to periodontal outcomes of different finish line designs is however available, generally showing only minor differences for BoP and recession 91,92 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

Ercoli

Tarnow

Poggio

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The technique eliminates the tooth's anatomical crown emergence at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to make room for the creation of a new emergence profile by the prosthetic crown. At the same time, rotary curettage of the gingival sulcus is performed [24][25][26][27][28]. The technique was inspired by periodontal prosthetic protocols of the 1980s and 1990s, such as rotary curettage and knife-edge dental preparation [8,14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that dental preparation and the exact position of the prosthetic crown are not related. Although the reshaping, of tissues includes connective tissue, the prosthetic crown will be positioned according to the biological position of the cementoenamel junction, 0.5-1 mm from the gingival margin [27][28][29][30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periodontal Behavior and Patient Satisfaction of Anterior Teeth Restored with Single Zirconia Crowns Using a Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique: A 6-Year Prospective Clinical Study

Serra-Pastor

Bustamante-Hernández

Fons-Font

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. The aim of this study was to analyze the behavior of the periodontal tissues around teeth in the anterior region when restored with zirconia single crowns, using a biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT), over a 6-year follow-up. Methods. The study investigated tooth-supported single crowns in the anterior region that were fabricated with a zirconia core and feldspathic ceramic covering, in 34 patients. Follow-up analysis took place annually for 6 years, assessing periodontal responses by evaluating the following variables: plaque index (PI); probing depth (PD); gingival index (GI); gingival thickness adjacent to the restoration; and stability of the gingival margin (MS). Any (biological and mechanical) complications were also recorded, as well as the patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Results. After 6 years’ follow-up, a low mean plaque index was obtained, probing depth was stable, and gingival thickness and margin stability had increased. Complications (biological and mechanical) did not present a statistically significant incidence and a crown survival rate of 97.2% was achieved. Patients’ satisfaction obtained a mean VAS score of 9.04 under 10. Conclusion. Teeth that are prepared with BOPT in the anterior region present good periodontal behavior around the restored teeth, particularly in terms of the stability of the gingival margin and increased gingival thickness. Single crowns prepared with BOPT obtain an excellent clinical survival rate, as well as a high score in patients’ satisfaction after 6 years.

show abstract

“…17,30,31 Some evidence suggests a knife-edge or feather-edge margin may be associated with less gingival recession, but more bleeding on probing. 32,33 The knife-edge preparation was frequently correlated with minimally invasive crown preparations. 34 Studies have shown that a clinician's gender is associated with treatment decisions and outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single‐Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

Minyé¹,

Gilbert

Litaker

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques. Methods: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. Results: Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1,777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.0001), region (p < 0.0001), and years since graduation (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.

show abstract

Clinical Periodontal Response to Anterior All-Ceramic Crowns with Either Chamfer or Feather-edge Subgingival Tooth Preparations: Six-Month Results and Patient Perception

Cited by 26 publications

References 26 publications

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

Periodontal Behavior and Patient Satisfaction of Anterior Teeth Restored with Single Zirconia Crowns Using a Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique: A 6-Year Prospective Clinical Study

Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single‐Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About