Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2012
Smile esthetics: the influence of posterior maxillary gingival margin position.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Crawford Robert W I, Tredwin Christopher, Moles David, Gill Daljit
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Successful replacement of posterior teeth using contemporary prosthodontic techniques in esthetically demanding cases relies upon visual replication of the natural posterior dentition and surrounding gingival architecture. There is currently little in the way of guidance for creating ideal or acceptable gingival relationships for posterior teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted comparing perceptions of four groups of individuals to six digitally manipulated images with various posterior teeth gingival margin position configurations. A total of 120 volunteers aged 12 years to 80 years, comprising 30 patients diagnosed with hypodontia, 30 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease, 30 patients without either condition, and 30 qualified dentists were recruited from the Eastman Dental Institute & Hospital, London. A ranked order of preference for each set was obtained, and this was repeated after a minimum time interval of 10 minutes.
RESULTS: Posterior gingival margin configurations from 0 mm to 2 mm (measured at the first premolar) were deemed most esthetic by the majority of the patient groups; dentists had a strong preference for the 1 mm configuration. Dentists appeared to be more perceptive to the alterations in gingival positions.
CONCLUSIONS: Posterior gingival margin configurations where the first premolar margins were 1 mm lower than the canine margins were deemed the most esthetically pleasing; however, it is likely that a range of acceptability of 1 mm deviations from this ideal exists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted comparing perceptions of four groups of individuals to six digitally manipulated images with various posterior teeth gingival margin position configurations. A total of 120 volunteers aged 12 years to 80 years, comprising 30 patients diagnosed with hypodontia, 30 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease, 30 patients without either condition, and 30 qualified dentists were recruited from the Eastman Dental Institute & Hospital, London. A ranked order of preference for each set was obtained, and this was repeated after a minimum time interval of 10 minutes.
RESULTS: Posterior gingival margin configurations from 0 mm to 2 mm (measured at the first premolar) were deemed most esthetic by the majority of the patient groups; dentists had a strong preference for the 1 mm configuration. Dentists appeared to be more perceptive to the alterations in gingival positions.
CONCLUSIONS: Posterior gingival margin configurations where the first premolar margins were 1 mm lower than the canine margins were deemed the most esthetically pleasing; however, it is likely that a range of acceptability of 1 mm deviations from this ideal exists.