Journal of dentistry · 2020
Effects of cervical restorations on the periodontal tissues: 5-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Favetti Morgana, Montagner Anelise Fernandes, Fontes Silvia Terra, Martins Thiago Marchi, Masotti Alexandre Severo, Jardim Patricia Dos Santos, Corrêa Fernanda Oliveira Bello, Cenci Maximiliano Sergio, Muniz Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the occurrence/progression of gingival recession (GR), considering different tooth isolation techniques.
METHODS: A randomized controlled split-mouth and blinded trial was carried out. Patients (n = 38) with at least two NCCLs were included. Before the cervical restoration placement, the NCCLs (181 teeth) were randomly allocated into two treatment groups according to the tooth isolation techniques: cotton roll or rubber dam. Experienced, trained, blinded, and calibrated examiners performed periodontal evaluations at baseline and 5-year follow-up, using a periodontal probe. Restorations were assessed with the FDI criteria. Thirty-two patients (154 teeth) were evaluated at 5 years. The occurrence/progression of GR between baseline and follow-up was considered the primary outcome. The relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) were calculated by Poisson regression (α < 0.05).
RESULTS: After 5 year, 31 teeth (13.6 %) presented occurrence/progression of GR. In the multivariate analyses, the occurrence/progression of GR was associated with the use of rubber dam isolation (RR; 95 %CI: 2.65; 1.01-7.00) and a lack of marginal adaptation of the restoration (RR; 95 %CI: 10.98; 2.31-52.30). Toothbrush stiffness, use of abrasive dentifrice, tooth type, and the presence of biofilm or gingivitis did not present a statistically significant higher risk for occurrence/progression of GR.
CONCLUSION: The use of rubber dam isolation associated with retraction clamp and the lack of a proper marginal adaptation of the composite restorations are risk indicators for the occurrence/progression of GR in individuals who received a restoration for an NCCL.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Isolation with a rubber dam and dental clamps may promote GR in sites with restored NCCLs. Moreover, clinical examinations for lack of marginal adaptations of the restorations may be included in a clinical setting.
METHODS: A randomized controlled split-mouth and blinded trial was carried out. Patients (n = 38) with at least two NCCLs were included. Before the cervical restoration placement, the NCCLs (181 teeth) were randomly allocated into two treatment groups according to the tooth isolation techniques: cotton roll or rubber dam. Experienced, trained, blinded, and calibrated examiners performed periodontal evaluations at baseline and 5-year follow-up, using a periodontal probe. Restorations were assessed with the FDI criteria. Thirty-two patients (154 teeth) were evaluated at 5 years. The occurrence/progression of GR between baseline and follow-up was considered the primary outcome. The relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) were calculated by Poisson regression (α < 0.05).
RESULTS: After 5 year, 31 teeth (13.6 %) presented occurrence/progression of GR. In the multivariate analyses, the occurrence/progression of GR was associated with the use of rubber dam isolation (RR; 95 %CI: 2.65; 1.01-7.00) and a lack of marginal adaptation of the restoration (RR; 95 %CI: 10.98; 2.31-52.30). Toothbrush stiffness, use of abrasive dentifrice, tooth type, and the presence of biofilm or gingivitis did not present a statistically significant higher risk for occurrence/progression of GR.
CONCLUSION: The use of rubber dam isolation associated with retraction clamp and the lack of a proper marginal adaptation of the composite restorations are risk indicators for the occurrence/progression of GR in individuals who received a restoration for an NCCL.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Isolation with a rubber dam and dental clamps may promote GR in sites with restored NCCLs. Moreover, clinical examinations for lack of marginal adaptations of the restorations may be included in a clinical setting.