Post‐extraction mesio‐distal gap reduction assessment by confocal laser scanning microscopy – a clinical 3‐month follow‐up study

García-Herraiz, Ariadna; Silvestre, Francisco-Javier; Leiva-García, R.; Crespo-Abril, Fortunato; Garcı́a-Antón, J.

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12706

Cited by 3 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Minor antagonist tooth extrusion happened in all the cases, while the mesial‐distal distance of the tooth‐missing site showed a tendency to decrease. These results partially confirmed the outcomes of some previous studies (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2017; Gragg et al., 2001). With a single tooth loss, the remaining teeth especially the neighboring and antagonist teeth had a tendency to rearrange to establish a new equilibrium state, which might lead to the reduction in the tooth‐missing gap (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2012).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The reports about migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth after natural tooth extraction remain inconsistent. A variety of clinical studies revealed that the integrity and stability of natural dentition could be affected for a long time after tooth extraction if the space was left without restoration (Christou & Kiliaridis, 2007; Craddock et al., 2007; Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2012, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean reduction in the mesial‐distal tooth‐missing gap did not exceed 1 mm six years after tooth extraction (Gragg et al., 2001; Shugars et al., 2000). With the tooth‐missing time prolonged, the risk of dimensional edentulous gap changes decreased (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2017; Gragg et al., 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies investigating dimensional change in tooth‐missing gap after tooth extraction generally had a 5‐ to 20‐year observation time (Christou & Kiliaridis, 2007; Gragg et al., 2001; Kiliaridis et al., 2000; Love & Adams, 1971; Shugars et al., 2000). Only one study compared the change in tooth‐missing gap between 1 and 3 months after tooth extraction by analyzing stone models with confocal laser scanning microscopy technique (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2017). They reported 0.35‐mm and 0.67‐mm mean gap reduction 1 and 3 months following tooth extraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods of measurement used in prior studies included the following: clinical examination (Kiliaridis et al., 2000; Love & Adams, 1971), questionnaire (Kiliaridis et al., 2000), radiographic evaluation (Gragg et al., 2001; Lindskog‐Stokland et al., 2012; Shugars et al., 2000), and stone model measurement (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2017). Some of these methods were qualitative techniques (Kiliaridis et al., 2000; Love & Adams, 1971), while others were quantitative techniques (Garcia‐Herraiz et al., 2017; Gragg et al., 2001; Lindskog‐Stokland et al., 2012; Shugars et al., 2000). These quantitative techniques have some limitations such as lacking fixed reference markers, using two‐dimensional (2D) radiographies, involving too many manual interventions in data acquisition, or failing to standardize the reference points.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth three months after implant placement in healed single tooth‐missing sites

Guo

Pan

Mühlemann

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To quantify the neighboring and antagonist teeth migration of a single posterior tooth‐missing site within 3 months using digital scanning and measuring techniques. Materials and Methods Intraoral scans (IOS) were made in 40 patients presenting a single posterior tooth‐missing gap and receiving implant therapy. IOS were obtained at the day of and three months after implant surgery rendering a digital baseline model (BM) and a digital follow‐up model (FM). Digital models were superimposed using the implant scan body as reference. Antagonist models were processed by the best fit alignment. Dimensional change between anatomical landmarks on neighboring teeth and that of featuring points on antagonistic teeth were measured using a three‐dimensional analysis software. The Mann–Whitney U test was applied to compare the tooth‐moving distance between the mesial and distal neighboring teeth. The Kruskal–Wallis one‐way ANOVA was used to test the difference in dimensional change in tooth‐missing site among age subgroups. Results The mean dimensional change in the tooth‐missing site was −37.62 ± 106.36 μm (median: −28.33 μm, Q25 −72.65/Q75 38.97) mesial‐distally and −67.91 ± 42.37 μm (median: −61.50 μm, Q25 −88.25/Q75 −36.75) occlusal‐gingivally. Eighteen out of 40 mesial neighboring teeth and 24 out of 40 distal neighboring teeth showed migration towards the implants. When patients were grouped according to age, the mesial‐distal reduction in the tooth‐missing site was significantly larger in patients younger than 30 years compared with those older than 50 years (p < .05). Conclusions The dimensions of posterior tooth‐missing sites decreased over an observation period of 3 months.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth three months after implant placement in healed single tooth‐missing sites

Guo

Pan

Mühlemann

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adjacent tooth migration after maxillary first molar loss in patients with sinus augmentation: A retrospective research

Zhao

Shi

Yi-lun

et al. 2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe objectives of this study are to: (1) investigate the extent of antagonistic and distal neighboring tooth migration in the maxillary posterior single tooth‐missing site during the healing period of bone augmentation and implant surgery; (2) identify factors associated with tooth migration.Materials and methodsOne hundred and forty‐three cases that lost the maxillary first molar were included, and their CBCT data during the edentulous period were obtained. Dentition models were reconstructed from CBCT, and superimpositions were performed, followed by measuring migration distances and calculating migration rates of antagonistic and distal neighboring teeth. Factors were analyzed using multivariate generalized estimating equations (GEE).ResultsThe mean migration distances were 208 ± 137 μm and 403 ± 605 μm for antagonistic teeth and distal teeth, and the mean migration rates were 26.8 ± 21.2 μm/month and 48.5 ± 76.7 μm/month, respectively. One hundred and nineteen out of 143 distal neighboring teeth migrated toward the edentulous site, and all antagonistic teeth migrated occlusally. Occlusal contact loss and chronic apical periodontitis both significantly accelerated antagonistic tooth migration (p < 0.05), the latter also accelerated distal tooth migration (p < 0.05). Besides, the displacement of the distal teeth was somewhat accelerated by the impacted adjacent third molar and root protrusion into the sinus.ConclusionsThe neighboring teeth tend to migrate toward the edentulous gap in the maxillary posterior region. Occlusal contact loss and chronic apical periodontitis are two significant risk factors for accelerating antagonistic tooth migration, and for distal teeth, chronic apical periodontitis is the risk factor. The impacted adjacent third molar and root protrusion into the sinus are also potential risk factors for accelerating the migration of the maxillary distal tooth. Thus, to prevent maxillary edentulous gap reduction, the factors mentioned above should be taken into consideration when planning treatment flow.

show abstract

Crown adjustment and chairside efficiency of single‐unit restorations fabricated from immediate and staged impressions using a digital workflow for posterior implants

Ren,

Jiang,

Lin

et al. 2024

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis is a clinical study to compare immediate and staged impression methods in a complete digital workflow for single‐unit implants in the posterior area.Materials and MethodsSixty patients requiring single‐unit implant crowns were enrolled. Forty patients were assigned to the test group, immediate digital impression after implant surgery with crown delivery 4 months later. The remaining 20 patients were assigned to the control group, staged digital impressions 4 months after implant surgery, and crown delivery 1 month later. Both workflows involved free‐model CAD‐CAM crown fabrications. The crowns were scanned before and after clinical adjustment using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS Color; 3Shape). Two 3D digital models were trimmed and superimposed to evaluate the dimensional changes using Geomagic Control software. Chairside times for the entire workflow were recorded. Kruskal–Wallis was performed to compare crown adjustments between two groups, while One‐way ANOVA was used to compare chairside time durations between the test and control groups.ResultsAll crowns were delivered without refabrication. The average maximum occlusion adjustment of crowns was −353.2 ± 207.1 μm in the test group and −212.7 ± 150.5 μm in the control group (p = 0.02). The average area of occlusal adjustment, measured as an area of deviation larger than 100 μm, was 14.8 ± 15.3 and 8.4 ± 8.1 mm2 in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences in the mesial and distal contact adjustment amounts, or the maximum deviations of the proximal area, between the two groups. The mean chair‐side time was 50.25 ± 13.48 and 51.20 ± 5.34 min in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.763).ConclusionsThe immediate impression method in the digital workflow for single‐unit implants required more occlusal adjustments of crowns but showed similar chairside times compared to the staged impression method.

show abstract

Post‐extraction mesio‐distal gap reduction assessment by confocal laser scanning microscopy – a clinical 3‐month follow‐up study

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

The migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth three months after implant placement in healed single tooth‐missing sites

The migration of neighboring and antagonist teeth three months after implant placement in healed single tooth‐missing sites

Adjacent tooth migration after maxillary first molar loss in patients with sinus augmentation: A retrospective research

Crown adjustment and chairside efficiency of single‐unit restorations fabricated from immediate and staged impressions using a digital workflow for posterior implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About