The effect of prosthetic margin location on caries susceptibility. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.; Papadelli, A. P.; Koidis, Petros; Petridis, Haralampos

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.582

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The radiographic detection of restoration interfaces is important in order to avoid secondary caries, crestal bone loss, or periapical lesions due to leakage or microleakage. 3 4 5 Previous studies have assessed the quality of the tooth-restoration interface with conventional and digital X-ray technology, with intraoral and extraoral examinations, and with CBCT; however, most of those studies evaluated teeth without metal restorations. 9 11 12 Therefore, the present study tested and compared which dental X-ray imaging method better assessed misfit of the tooth-restoration interface in teeth with resin and metal restorations, with the ultimate goal of avoiding tooth damage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe present study aimed to evaluate which of the following imaging methods best assessed misfit at the tooth-restoration interface: (1) bitewing radiographs, both conventional and digital, performed using a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) and a charge-coupled device (CCD) system; (2) panoramic radiographs, both conventional and digital; and (3) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).Materials and MethodsForty healthy human molars with class I cavities were selected and divided into 4 groups according to the restoration that was applied: composite resin, composite resin with liner material to simulate misfit, dental amalgam, and dental amalgam with liner material to simulate misfit. Radiography and tomography were performed using the various imaging methods, and the resulting images were analyzed by 2 calibrated radiologists. The true presence or absence of misfit corresponding to an area of radiolucency in regions subjacent to the esthetic and metal restorations was validated with microscopy. The data were analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the scores were compared using the Cohen kappa coefficient.ResultsFor bitewing images, the digital systems (CCD and PSP) showed a higher area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for the evaluation of resin restorations, while the conventional images exhibited a larger AUROC for the evaluation of amalgam restorations. Conventional and digital panoramic radiographs did not yield good results for the evaluation of resin and amalgam restorations (P<.05). CBCT images exhibited good results for resin restorations (P>.05), but showed no discriminatory ability for amalgam restorations (P<.05).ConclusionBitewing radiographs (conventional or digital) should be the method of choice when assessing dental restoration misfit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1 2 Misfit between dental hard tissue and the margins of restorations results in leakage or microleakage, which may cause secondary or recurrent caries, crestal bone loss, or periapical lesions. 3 4 5 Misfit between the tooth and restoration can be detected using radiographic images. 4 5 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proper marginal fit of dental fillings and crowns is important to prevent periodontal disease and recurrent caries, no matter the location of the margins . Several authors state that the gingival margin of a filling and a crown can be evaluated by clinical (visual inspection and/or an explorer) or radiographic methods and also that it is considered a difficult diagnostic task, especially when the restoration margin is located interproximally and subgingivally .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographic diagnosis of dental restoration misfit: a systematic review

Liedke

Spin‐Neto

Silveira

et al. 2014

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfit in dental prostheses and restorations. The MEDLINE bibliographic database was searched from 1950 to February 2014 for reports on the radiographic diagnosis of misfits. The search strategy was limited to English-language publications using the following combined MeSH terms in the search strategy: (Dental Restoration OR Dental Prosthesis OR Crown OR Inlays OR Dental Abutments) and (Dental Leakage OR Prosthesis Fitting OR Dental Marginal Adaptation OR Surface Properties) and (Radiography, Dental OR Radiography, Dental, Digital OR Cone-Beam Computed Tomography). Twenty-eight publications were identified and read in full text, and 14 studies fulfilled criteria for inclusion. Information regarding the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfits in dental prosthesis and restorations, and in which the methodology/results comprised information regarding how the sample was collected/prepared, the method, imaging protocol, presence of a reference test and the outcomes were evaluated. QUADAS criteria was used to rate the studies in high, moderate or low quality. The evidence supporting the use of radiographic methods for the diagnosis of misfits in dental prosthesis and restorations is limited to low-/moderate-quality studies. The well-established intra-oral orthogonal projection is still under investigation and considered the most appropriate method, both when evaluating the relation between dental restoration to tooth and abutment to implant. Studies using digital radiographs have not evaluated the effect of image post-processing, and tomography has not been evaluated.

show abstract

“…Consistent assessments for root filling quality and crown fitting are also important for maintaining the tooth and surrounding tissues (misfits may lead to periodontal disease or recurrent caries). [9][10][11] Nevertheless, when metal restorations are present, metal artifacts may reduce image quality and compromise the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT examinations. 12 In an attempt to reduce the appearance of artifacts in CBCT images, some strategies have been developed, most of them involving postprocessing of acquired data such as the use of smoothening filters or changing the reconstruction thickness of the images.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography sections with various thicknesses for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth

Liedke

Spin‐Neto

Vizzotto

et al. 2015

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effect of prosthetic margin location on caries susceptibility. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background The prosthetic margin location relevant to the free gingival margin may

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth

Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth

Radiographic diagnosis of dental restoration misfit: a systematic review

Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography sections with various thicknesses for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About