Periodontal response to a tricalcium silicate material or resin composite placed in close contact to the supracrestal tissue attachment: a histomorphometric comparative study

Castelo‐Baz, Pablo; Argibay-Lorenzo, Olalla; Muñoz, Fernando; Martín‐Biedma, Benjamín; Darriba, Iria L.; Miguéns-Vila, Ramón; Ramos‐Barbosa, Isabel; López-Peña, Mónica; Blanco‐Carrión, Juan

doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03876-x

Cited by 6 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were anticipated, considering that all restorations were positioned at a safe distance of at least 2‐mm from the bone crest. Previous research has shown that such a distance does not lead to pathological periodontal depth or bone loss 12,36 . This finding may also explain why there were no statistically significant differences in any of the periodontal parameters between the 1 and 2‐year, and 2 and 3‐year evaluation periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Previous research has shown that such a distance does not lead to pathological periodontal depth or bone loss. 12,36 This finding may also explain why there were no statistically significant differences in any of the periodontal parameters between the 1 and 2-year, and 2 and 3-year evaluation periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…12,29 These conditions can manifest as symptoms like bleeding, swelling, suppuration, loss of attachment, and periodontal pockets. 12 In order to adhere to the recommended guidelines, F I G U R E 1 Shows the CONSORT flow diagram, which details the number of restorations allocated for intervention, the number lost, and the number of restorations available for analysis at each follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3‐year results of a randomized double‐blind trial

Ismail,

Ali,

El. Mehesen

et al. 2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo provide a 3‐year follow‐up of previously treated patients to assess and compare the periodontal responses and clinical performance of proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations.Materials and MethodsNinety‐five adults participated in the study, with a combined total of 120 compound Class II cavities. These cavities had gingival margins located below the CEJ. Four different restorative materials were used to elevate the dentin/cementum gingival margins of the cavities: resin‐modified glass ionomer, glass hybrid, flowable bulk‐fill composite, or ion‐releasing material, which were then completed with the same overlaying composite. Different periodontal and clinical evaluations, based on the criteria set by the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, were performed at different time intervals, including baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years.ResultsThe type of base material did not affect the periodontal evaluations. There were no statistically significant differences between different time intervals or base material groups in any of the evaluated FDI parameters. However, the ion‐releasing material scored significantly worse in the radiographic evaluation than any of the other groups.ConclusionsAll tested materials are suitable for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as long as the restoration/tooth margin is at least 2‐mm away from the bone crest.Clinical SignificanceClinicians can confidently choose any of the tested materials for proximal subgingival open sandwich restorations, as they have shown good outcomes from both periodontal and clinical perspectives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3‐year results of a randomized double‐blind trial

Ismail,

Ali,

El. Mehesen

et al. 2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be done at a 2 mm distance from the alveolar crest with composite (considering good adaptation and polishing of the composite) as the space is preserved for the connective tissue attachment. On the contrary, lower distance is an indication of SCL with ostectomy to provide this space for the connective tissue [ 89 ]. Three different clinical situations were classified by Veneziani [ 8 ] based on technical operating and biological parameters illustrated in Table 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep Margin Elevation: Current Concepts and Clinical Considerations: A Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dietschi and Spreafico first proposed deep margin elevation (DME) in 1998 to address the multiple clinical problems associated with sub-gingival margins, where sub-gingival margins will be repositioned coronally using composite resin restorations. Given that dentistry is directing towards conservatism, its use is currently trending. Materials and Methods: a search was performed through PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar search engines to obtain relevant articles with no time restriction. Results: With biological width taken into consideration, well-defined and polished sub-gingival restorations are compatible with periodontal health. Marginal integrity in the DME technique seems to be affected by the type of adhesive, restoration, and incremental layering of the restoration. Regarding fracture resistance, DME has no significant effects. Conclusion: The DME technique seems to be a minimally invasive alternative to surgical crown lengthening (SCL) and orthodontic extrusion (OE) with respect to biological width. Well-controlled clinical trials are limited in this field; further long-term follow-up studies emphasizing the periodontal outcomes and prevention of complications are needed.

show abstract

“…A further study demonstrated no differences in clinical or histological findings of the periodontal tissues adjacent to the DME when compared with untreated controls (Bertoldi et al, 2020 ). There is also differing opinion on the acceptable depth of the DME, and specifically, the proximity of the restoration margin to the connective tissue and the crestal bone (Castelo‐Baz et al, 2021 ; Ghezzi et al, 2019 ; Sarfati & Tirlet, 2018 ). Proponents of DME have suggested that the technique may be utilized at any depth in relation to the crestal bone, as long as optimal rubber dam isolation can be achieved (Ghezzi et al, 2019 ), and that a shorter long junctional epithelial attachment can be maintained without inducing periodontal attachment loss.…”

Section: Deep Margin Elevationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Present status and future directions: The restoration of root filled teeth

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This narrative review will focus on a number of contemporary considerations relating to the restoration of root filled teeth and future directions for research. Clinicians are now more than ever, aware of the interdependence of the endodontic and restorative aspects of managing root filled teeth, and how these aspects of treatment are fundamental to obtaining the best long-term survival. To obtain the optimal outcomes for patients, clinicians carrying out endodontic treatment should have a vested interest in the restorative phase of the treatment process, as well as an appreciation for the structural and biomechanical effects of endodontic-restorative procedures on restoration and tooth longevity. Furthermore, the currently available research, largely lacks appreciation of occlusal factors in the longevity of root filled teeth, despite surrogate outcomes demonstrating the considerable influence this variable has.Controversies regarding the clinical relevance of minimally invasive endodontic and restorative concepts are largely unanswered with respect to clinical data, and it is therefore, all too easy to dismiss these ideas due to the lack of scientific evidence.However, conceptually, minimally invasive endodontic-restorative philosophies appear to be valid, and therefore, in the pursuit of improved clinical outcomes, it is important that the efficacies of these treatment protocols are determined. Alongside an increased awareness of the preservation of tooth structure, developments in adhesive bonding, ceramic materials and the inevitable integration of digital dentistry, there is also a need to evaluate the efficacy of new treatment philosophies and techniques with well-designed prospective clinical studies.

show abstract

Periodontal response to a tricalcium silicate material or resin composite placed in close contact to the supracrestal tissue attachment: a histomorphometric comparative study

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3‐year results of a randomized double‐blind trial

Clinical evaluation of subgingival open sandwich restorations: 3‐year results of a randomized double‐blind trial

Deep Margin Elevation: Current Concepts and Clinical Considerations: A Review

Present status and future directions: The restoration of root filled teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About