Evaluation of proximal contact strength by postural changes

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMProper proximal contact is important for maintaining and stabilizing the dental arch. However, the proximal contact strength (PCS) is not a constant value and can be affected by a variety of factors.PURPOSEThis study examined the influences of postural changes on the posterior PCS.MATERIAL AND METHODSTwelve adults with a normal occlusion and had not undergone prosthetic treatment or proximal restoration were participated in this study. A metal strip was inserted into the proximal surface and removed at a constant velocity. The contact strength was measured in every contact point between canine to second molar in both arches. The PCSs were obtained initially in the upright position, secondly in the supine position and finally in the upright position again. All measurements were repeated after a 2 hour period. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Friedman test (P < .05).RESULTSGenerally, a decrease in PCS occurred when the posture was changed from the initial upright to supine position, while it increased when the posture was changed from the supine to upright position. A significant change was observed in all areas except for between the canine-first premolar in the maxilla and between the first molarsecond molar in the mandible areas.CONCLUSIONThe posterior PCS, which dentists generally believe to be a static feature of occlusion, is affected significantly by posture.

The accuracy of clinician evaluation of interproximal contacts using different methods

“…Findings from this study cannot be directly compared with those reported previously as similar studies are lacking. Research involving shim stock has focused primarily on measuring the interproximal contact force, [15][16][17][18] and the use of different shim stock thicknesses, different measuring devices, and different clinical questions has led to results that cannot be compared with those reported in this study. Similarly, floss [19][20][21] and articulating film 22,23 have been used to evaluate different restorative procedures and materials, but direct comparisons with the results of the present study are not possible.…”

“…12 Previous assessments of interproximal contact have focused primarily on unrestored teeth or teeth containing direct restorative materials. [2][3][4][5]8,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The authors are unaware of evidence-based reports that have evaluated the best methods for assessing the tightness of interproximal contacts of crowns. This study was conducted to provide information by comparing 3 different evaluation methods in which the interproximal distance was controlled by varying the crown width.…”

Complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal

“…Foi possível perceber que sistemas que utilizam anéis de separação 6,8,9,12 vem ganhando espaço e se mostrando uma alternativa viável e promissora. Porém, postura e limitações de adaptação do operador durante o preparo da área de contato foram citadas como complicações 16 .…”

The influence of the stomatognathic system on explosive strength: a pilot study

“…Moreover, the mandible position is determined by dental occlusion, the relative position of teeth to each other 8 , 9 ) . In addition, some studies have found that the stomatognathic system and mandible disorders can influence the spine 10 , 11 ) . Tecco et al also observed that the loading percentage and the loading surface on the right and the left feet were influenced by an experimentally induced imbalance of occlusion created by a cotton roll positioned in dental arches 12 ) .…”