Periodontal response to two different subgingival restorative margin designs: a 12-month randomized clinical trial

Paniz, Gianluca; Nart, José; Gobbato, Luca; Chierico, Andrea; Lops, Diego; Michalakis, Konstantinos

doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1616-z

Cited by 42 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For indirect restorations, overhangs between 0.5 and 1 mm are associated with an increase in gingival inflammation and a more apical crestal bone level, while overhangs of less than 0.2 mm are not . Other studies showed that subgingival margins were associated with increased signs of gingival inflammation and, at times, increases in PD …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…33 For indirect restorations, overhangs between 0.5 and 1 mm are associated with an increase in gingival inflammation 29 and a more apical crestal bone level, while overhangs of less than 0.2 mm are not. 32,34 Other studies showed that subgingival margins were associated with increased signs of gingival inflammation [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and, at times, increases in PD. [43][44][45][46][47] A clear association is found between periodontal health and patient compliance with self-performed plaque control and periodontal maintenance after prosthodontic therapy with fixed dental prostheses.…”

Section: Fixed Dental Restorations and Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental prostheses and tooth‐related factors

Ercoli

Caton

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tooth anatomic factors, such as root abnormalities and fractures, and tooth relationships in the dental arch and with the opposing dentition can enhance plaque retention. Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. Tooth-supported and/or tooth-retained restorations and their design, fabrication, delivery, and materials have often been associated with plaque retention and loss of attachment. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials. Restoration margins placed within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with inflammation and, potentially, recession. However, the evidence in several of the reviewed areas, especially related to the biologic mechanisms by which these factors affect the periodontium, is not conclusive. This highlights the need for additional well-controlled animal studies to elucidate biologic mechanisms, as well as longitudinal prospective human trials. Adequate periodontal assessment and treatment, appropriate instructions, and motivation in self-performed plaque control and compliance to maintenance protocols appear to be the most important factors to limit or avoid potential negative effects on the periodontium caused by fixed and removable prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Fixed Dental Restorations and Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental prostheses and tooth‐related factors

Ercoli

Caton

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After screening titles and abstracts, 32 articles were selected for full‐text evaluation. Twenty‐six articles were further excluded from the qualitative and quantitative analyses; the reasons for exclusion are listed in Table . After full‐text review, no literature regarding tooth‐supported prostheses was identified.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The significance of surgically modifying soft tissue phenotype around fixed dental prostheses: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review

Lin

Curtis

Kapila

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This systematic review endeavored to investigate the effect of soft tissue phenotype modification therapy (PhMT‐s) at sites with a tooth or an implant supported fixed dental prosthesis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted by two independent examiners to identify relevant studies reporting differences in clinical, esthetic, or radiographic outcomes of interest between sites underwent PhMT‐s and sites that remained untreated. Risk of bias assessment was calculated for all included studies. Meta‐analyses involving endpoints of interest were performed when feasible. Results No controlled studies pertaining to tooth sites were identified. A total of six articles reporting on the outcomes of buccal soft tissue phenotype modification around implants were selected, of which, five were included in the meta‐analyses. Quantitative analyses showed a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.98 mm (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.72 mm, P = 0.009) for change of tissue thickness; a WMD of −4.87% (95% CI = −34.27 to 24.53%, P = 0.75) for bleeding on probing (BOP); a WMD of 0.36 mm (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.59 mm, P = 0.003) for mucosal recession (MR); a WMD of 0.13 mm (95% CI = −0.11 to 0.36 mm, P = 0.30 for probing depth (PD); a WMD of 1.08 (95% CI = −0.39 to 2.55, P = 0.15) for pink esthetic score (PES), and a WMD of 0.40 mm (95% CI = −0.34 to 1.14 mm, P = 0.28) for marginal bone loss (MBL). Conclusions Surgical modification of peri‐implant soft tissue phenotype via PhMT‐s may decrease the amount of MR. Future clinical trials are needed to warrant the clinical benefits of modifying soft tissue phenotype around tooth‐supported restorations.

show abstract

“…Supragingival placement of margins is generally favored by restorative dentists due to ease in accurate impression, precise detailing of finished restoration, confirmation of marginal integrity, and preservation of periodontal health. [1][2][3] However, certain clinical circumstances do not allow the placement of supragingival margins and necessitate subgingival placement of the restorations. 4,5 The indication for crown lengthening surgery suggests the need for proper access to sufficiently isolate the final prepared margins and to circumvent the consequences of improperly placed restorative margins that may lead to gingival inflammation and consequently periodontal deterioration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Surgical Crown Lengthening Procedure Produce Stable Clinical Outcomes for Restorative Treatment? A Meta‐Analysis

Al-Sowygh

2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Periodontal response to two different subgingival restorative margin designs: a 12-month randomized clinical trial

Abstract: Subgingival margins should be carefully selected, especially when feather edge finishing line is utilized.

Cited by 42 publications

References 57 publications

Dental prostheses and tooth‐related factors

Dental prostheses and tooth‐related factors

The significance of surgically modifying soft tissue phenotype around fixed dental prostheses: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review

Does Surgical Crown Lengthening Procedure Produce Stable Clinical Outcomes for Restorative Treatment? A Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About