Pattern of maxillary and mandibular proximal enamel thickness at the contact area of the permanent dentition from first molar to first molar

Sarig, Rachel; Vardimon, Alexander D.; Sussan, Celine; Benny, Lea; Sarne, Ofer; Hershkovitz, Israel; Shpack, Nir

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.026

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicated a general tendency for clinicians to concentrate IPR on the anterior region of mandibular teeth, especially on the incisors, although posterior IPR has been highly recommended by several studies as the enamel thickness increases in this area. 5,6 This general trend is based on the aim to resolve anterior crowding without altering posterior occlusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Kalemaj¹,

Levrini²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate the correspondence between programmed interproximal reduction (p-IPR) and implemented interproximal reduction (i-IPR) in an everyday-practice scenario. The secondary objective was to estimate factors that might influence i-IPR to make the process more efficient. Materials and Methods Fifty patients treated with aligner therapy by six orthodontists were included in this prospective observational study. Impressions were taken at the beginning of treatment and after the first set of aligners. Data on p-IPR, i-IPR and technical aspects of IPR were gathered for 464 teeth. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis, and multilevel mixed regression. Results Mean difference between p-IPR and i-IPR was 0.15 mm (SD: 0.14 mm; P = .0001), with lower canines showing the highest discrepancy. Use of burs and measuring gauges resulted in a smaller difference (respectively: coeff.: 0.09, P = .029; coeff.: −0.06, P = .013). IPR was performed more accurately on the mesial surface of teeth than on the distal surface. Round tripping before IPR resulted in a slightly more precise i-IPR compared to the previous alignment (coeff.: −0.021, P = .041). Conclusions Implemented IPR tends to be less than p-IPR, especially for lower canines and distal surfaces of teeth. Burs tend to provide more precise i-IPR, especially compared to manual strips; however, there is variation between the techniques. Using a measuring gauge tends to increase the precision of i-iPR. As several factors influence the implementation of IPR, particular attention must be paid during the procedure to maximize its precision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Enamel reduction in the premolar and molar area can provide up to 9.8 mm of additional space for the realignment of mandibular teeth. 5,6 It can also be used to improve occlusal relationships and functionality by preserving the intercanine distance, while leaving the inclination of the incisors unaltered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Kalemaj¹,

Levrini²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contact areas between primary molars are broader, flatter, and situated farther gingivally than the contact points between permanent molars 2 – 5 . Essentially, the broader proximal contact areas observed in primary teeth are likely to increase caries susceptibility, since the self-cleansing action would be reduced because of the limited movement, leading to greater plaque accumulation 2 , 6 , 7 . Previous studies in this regard 8 – 13 have focused mainly on two areas, the association of closed or open contacts with dental caries and the progression of proximal caries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposed classification for interproximal contacts of primary molars using CBCT: a pilot study

Kirthiga¹,

Muthu²,

Kayalvizhi³

et al. 2018

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Interproximal contact areas in primary teeth are known to be broader, flatter, and situated more gingivally than in permanent teeth. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the different types of intact interproximal contact areas in primary teeth using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) among children. Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed with 74 contacts from 28 existing CBCT images of children aged between 3 and 14 years, obtained from the Indian Dental Education Academy, Chennai, India. The shape of the contact area was observed at three levels, the coronal, middle, and apical thirds, in three different sections of CBCT. Prevalence of the types of contact areas was expressed in the form of numbers and percentages. Results: The weighted Cohen’s kappa values for inter-examiner reliability was 0.893 at baseline. Results exhibited four different types of contact areas between the primary molars, namely, O type, X type, I type, and S type, based on the shapes observed; hence, the proposed classification is referred to as OXIS. The most common pattern seen was I (66.2%), followed by X (21.6%), O (9.4%) and the least common was S (2.7%). Conclusion: The three-dimensional evaluation of intact interproximal contact areas between primary molars are of four types, O,X, I and S.

show abstract

“…Different reports exist in the literature regarding the maximum amount of enamel reduction admissible without inducing permanent damage to the teeth and the oral system. Because of the reduced enamel thickness of teeth in the anterior mandibular region, the use of IPR on lower incisors is severely limited [3]. Thus it is generally recommended that clinicians assess enamel thickness radiographically before extensive IPR, since individual variation is known to exist [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess and compare the enamel surface quality after interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) was performed with different systems and to study the relation between acid penetration depth and enamel surface quality as well as the importance of remineralization. Methods Sixty-five extracted teeth were randomly allocated to five experimental groups: untreated control, manual with New Metal Strips, mechanical with oscillating segment (OS) discs, Safe-Tipped Bur Kit, and the Ortho-Strip, followed by 30 s of polishing with the Softflex system and the Compo-system after treating the tooth with OS discs. Mesial surfaces were demineralized for 24 h and distal surfaces were subjected to interchanging demineralization and remineralization cycles of 24 h each for 18 days. The analysis was carried out by profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, and polarization microscopy. Results After IPR and polishing, enamel roughness was reduced for all systems tested except for the Essix Safe-Tipped Bur Kit. Subsequent demineralization increased enamel roughness in all groups except controls beyond the original level prior to IPR except for IPR with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips and subsequent polishing. Cyclic demineralization and remineralization for 18 days yielded a reduction in acid penetration depth and an increase in surface smoothness, which correlated with each other only for controls and treatment with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips.

show abstract

Pattern of maxillary and mandibular proximal enamel thickness at the contact area of the permanent dentition from first molar to first molar

Cited by 30 publications

References 30 publications

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Proposed classification for interproximal contacts of primary molars using CBCT: a pilot study

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About