Influence of Interdental Contacts on Periodontal Status,

Abstract

A group of 40 healthy, young adult male naval recruits were examined and scored for gingival inflammation, plaque, food impaction, pocket depth, carious lesions, calculus, restorations and overhangs. The findings of this study support those previously reported in naval recruits, i.e. gingival inflammation is widespread involving almost every area examined. Naval recruits do not adequately remove deposits of interdental plaque, and at least one pocket with a depth of 4 mm or greater is present in three out of every four recruits. Additionally, it was found that the level of gingival inflammation was considered moderate or severe in more than 80% of the areas examined. Analysis revealed no significant relationship between contact type and Gingival Index or pocket depth. However, the significant relationship observed between food impaction and contact type, and between food impaction and pocket depth, reinforced clinical observations that food impaction contributes to periodontal pathosis. A high number of restorations had mechanical retentive areas for bacterial plaque accumulations. Thus, in addition to establishing adequate levels of interproximal surface plaque removal by the patient, the clinician should take great care in finishing the gingival margins of restorations and should eliminate those factors associated with food impaction early in treatment.

The Influence of Matrix Type on the Proximal Contact in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

“…[3][4][5] In vivo, the contact strength is influenced by several factors, including tooth type, location of the tooth, time of day, 3 postural change, 28 periodontal condition of the tooth 29 and showing a high individual variability. The foregoing parameters are difficult to simulate in laboratory conditions and, at the same time, their impact cannot be easily assessed in vivo.…”

“…[1][2] This objective pertains to reproducing the natural proximal contour of a contact that is tight enough to prevent food impaction, which is crucial for the healthy maintenance of underlying periodontal tissues. [3][4][5] Increased gingival inflammation and attachment loss, apart from the presence of overhanging restorations, [6][7] have also been attributed to plaque accumulation due to loose proximal contacts. [5][6] However, alveolar bone loss is not directly attributed to open interproximal contacts but is strongly related to the overall periodontal status of the patient.…”

“…[5][6] However, alveolar bone loss is not directly attributed to open interproximal contacts but is strongly related to the overall periodontal status of the patient. 8 Annoyance and discomfort have been reported by patients who experience food impaction 4 at sites of open contact. On the other hand, the contact point must not be too strong, in order to avoid the shredding and impaction of dental floss fibers interproximally or periodontal trauma induced by excessive force applied during flossing.…”

Comparison of Proximal Contact and Contours of Premolars restored with Composite Restoration using Circumferential Matrix Band with and without Separation Ring: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…[1][2][3] In amalgam restorations, a tight proximal contact in a class II preparation can be obtained by condensation of the material but for resin-based composites, the same is not true. It has always remained a challenge for the dentists to obtain tight proximal contact with composites.…”

Reestablishment of interproximal contact with custom ring technique

“…[3] The loss of the interdental papilla might cause black spaces, food impaction, and phonetic issues. [4][5][6] One of the challenges of Class II restorations is exactly the reestablishment of the contour and interproximal contact [7][8][9][10] between the teeth, and clinic evidences demonstrate that the proximal gingival margin is the most common area to present failure in the adhesive process when compared to amalgam restorations. [12][13][14] In addition to this, there is the restriction or incapacity to obtain access to the repair area without removing the whole restoration.…”