Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2020
The Relationships Between Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Ercoli Carlo, Tarnow Dennis, Poggio Carlo E, Tsigarida Alexandra, Ferrari Marco, Caton Jack G, Chochlidakis Konstantinos
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To search the literature and to critically evaluate the findings on the periodontal outcomes of restorations and tooth-supported fixed prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched according to a systematic methodology, previously reported, but updated to include a larger database. Filters applied were: Case reports, clinical trial, review, guideline, randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and English. A narrative review was then synthesized to discuss periodontal outcomes related to restorations and tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Relevant data was organized into four sections: Direct restorations, indirect restorations, biologic width or supracrestal tissue attachment and tooth preparation/finish line design.
RESULTS: While increased gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss have been associated with subgingival restorations, intracrevicular margins do not cause periodontal diseases. Inflammation and bone loss occur, for both direct and indirect restorations, only with large overhangs. Different restorative materials are associated with different clinical responses when placed in the gingival sulcus or within the epithelial and connective tissue attachments. When the connective tissue attachment is removed, histological changes occur causing its apical shift and subsequent re-establishment. Gingival displacement during impression procedures can cause gingival recession. Emergence profile can have a range of values, not associated with periodontal diseases. Periodontal response appears to be clinically not different when compared among different finish line designs.
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary procedures and materials used for the placement and fabrication of tooth-supported restorations and fixed prostheses are compatible with periodontal health when adequate patient education and motivation in self-performed oral hygiene are present. Periodontal diagnostic criteria should be thoroughly reviewed before fixed restorative treatments are planned and executed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched according to a systematic methodology, previously reported, but updated to include a larger database. Filters applied were: Case reports, clinical trial, review, guideline, randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and English. A narrative review was then synthesized to discuss periodontal outcomes related to restorations and tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Relevant data was organized into four sections: Direct restorations, indirect restorations, biologic width or supracrestal tissue attachment and tooth preparation/finish line design.
RESULTS: While increased gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss have been associated with subgingival restorations, intracrevicular margins do not cause periodontal diseases. Inflammation and bone loss occur, for both direct and indirect restorations, only with large overhangs. Different restorative materials are associated with different clinical responses when placed in the gingival sulcus or within the epithelial and connective tissue attachments. When the connective tissue attachment is removed, histological changes occur causing its apical shift and subsequent re-establishment. Gingival displacement during impression procedures can cause gingival recession. Emergence profile can have a range of values, not associated with periodontal diseases. Periodontal response appears to be clinically not different when compared among different finish line designs.
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary procedures and materials used for the placement and fabrication of tooth-supported restorations and fixed prostheses are compatible with periodontal health when adequate patient education and motivation in self-performed oral hygiene are present. Periodontal diagnostic criteria should be thoroughly reviewed before fixed restorative treatments are planned and executed.