Tooth Mobility Revisited

Anderegg, Charles R.; Metzler, David G.

doi:10.1902/jop.2001.72.7.963

Cited by 26 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1011] If extracted, they increase the risk of fracture contamination and may sometimes be difficult to suture. [4] Neal et al . [5] study supports the vision that noninfected teeth in the line of fracture can be preserved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognosis of teeth in the line of mandibular fractures

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The purpose of this study was to evaluate teeth involved in the line of fracture, clinically and radiographically, and their associated complications so as to indicate if they should be managed conservatively or extracted.Materials and Methods:Data were collected from patients records treated of mandibular fractures. It was included pre and postoperative panoramic radiographs, information such as demographic data, age, and sex, fracture location, mobility, and vitality of teeth in the line of fracture, teeth stabilizing the fracture segment.Results:The sample presented 25 patients with teeth in the line of mandibular fractures. A total of 16 patients teeth in the line of fracture were vital during the 6th week postoperative follow-up and 9 patients with their teeth in the line of fracture were nonvital of which 4 were endodontically treated and the rest 5 patients teeth in the line of fracture were extracted as they showed signs of infection.Conclusion:This study demonstrated that the presence of teeth in the line of fracture is not a limiting factor for the treatment. Despite the risk of complications, tooth in the fracture line should be preserved for its merits. A regular clinical and radiological follow-up should be mandatory for at least a period of 1 year.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognosis of teeth in the line of mandibular fractures

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…& The application of rubber dam for the insertion of the restorations was possible. & Tooth mobility was lower than or equal to degree 1 (mobility of the tooth is discernible but not visible) [22].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years

Schenke¹,

Federlin²,

Hiller³

et al. 2011

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the materials used for luting indirect restorations, growing interest has been directed towards the use of self-adhesive resin cements. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem (RXU) for luting partial ceramic crowns (PCCs). In addition, the influence of selective enamel etching prior to luting (RXU+E) was assessed. Two-year results are reported. Thirty-four patients (68 PCCs) had originally received the intended treatment at baseline (BL). Twenty-nine patients (14 male, 15 female) with a total of 58 PCCs participated in the 2-year recall. In each patient, one PCC had been placed with RXU, one PCC with RXU+E. Restorations were evaluated at BL and 24 months after placement using modified United States Public Health Service criteria for postoperative hypersensitivity, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture and recurrent caries. Additionally, the "percentage failure" within the 2-year recall period for all restorations (n = 68) was calculated according to ADA Program Guidelines. Target value for acceptability of each procedure was <5% failure within 24 m. For statistical analysis of the data, the chi-square test was applied (α = 0.05). The median patient age was 41 years (24-59 years). Median PBI was 8% (5-10%). Twenty-two RXU PCCs were placed in molars, seven in premolars. Twenty-one RXU+E PCCs were placed in molars, eight in premolars. Statistically significant changes were observed for marginal adaptation (MA) and marginal discoloration (MD) between BL and 2 years but not between the two groups (RXU, RXU+E). Percentage of alfa values at BL for MA (RXU, 97% and RXU+E, 100%) and for MD (RXU, 97% and RXU+E, 97%) decreased to RXU, 14% and RXU+E, 28% for MA and to RXU, 50% and RXU+E, 59% for MD after 24 months. Within the observation period, three failures were recorded with RXU (5.1% failure), one failure was recorded for RXU+E (1.7% failure), but a significant influence of selective enamel etching on failure could not be verified. Although the results of the present study reveal a slight tendency for more favourable results if selective enamel etching is applied prior to insertion of ceramic PCCs with a self-adhesive luting material, longer-term evaluation is needed to confirm this. Additional selective enamel etching with a self-adhesive luting material does not considerably improve clinical performance of the restorations within the observation period reported, neither does it impose a hazard with respect to postoperative hypersensitivity.

show abstract

“…Assessment of tooth mobility constitutes a basic part of the comprehensive periodontal examination (2, 4). Hypermobility occurs in response to applied force and is dependent upon its direction, frequency, magnitude, distribution and type (2, 90, 107).…”

Section: What Methods Are Used To Detect Hypermobility Of Teeth?mentioning

confidence: 99%