Journal of clinical periodontology · 2015
Aesthetic crown lengthening: periodontal and patient-centred outcomes.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Silva Cléverson O, Soumaille Jéssica M S, Marson Fabiano C, Progiante Patrícia S, Tatakis Dimitris N
Аннотация
AIM: The objective of this prospective study was to assess clinical and patient-centred outcomes of aesthetic crown lengthening surgery for the treatment of altered passive eruption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were treated and followed up for 6 months. The evaluated clinical parameters included, among others, probing depth, clinical attachment level, clinical crown length (CLc ), cemento-enamel junction to alveolar bone crest distance, gingival width (GW) and gingival display (GD). Subjects completed surveys to evaluate satisfaction with smile, gingiva and tooth features and experience with the procedure.
RESULTS: Average CLc was 8.5 ± 0.5 mm at baseline and significantly increased (9.9 ± 0.5 mm; p < 0.0001) at 6 months. Concomitantly, GW significantly decreased from baseline (5.8 ± 1.2 mm) to 6 months (4.9 ± 1.1 mm; p < 0.008), as did GD (from 2.6 ± 2.0 mm to 1.1 ± 1.9 mm; p < 0.0001). In contrast to their pre-operative satisfaction level, the majority (≥73%) of patients were very satisfied post-operatively with gingival and tooth display, when smiling or talking, and with maxillary anterior tooth size and shape. All patients would undergo the procedure again and would recommend it to someone with a similar problem.
CONCLUSION: Aesthetic crown lengthening surgery results in high levels of patient satisfaction and predictable and stable outcomes in the short term.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were treated and followed up for 6 months. The evaluated clinical parameters included, among others, probing depth, clinical attachment level, clinical crown length (CLc ), cemento-enamel junction to alveolar bone crest distance, gingival width (GW) and gingival display (GD). Subjects completed surveys to evaluate satisfaction with smile, gingiva and tooth features and experience with the procedure.
RESULTS: Average CLc was 8.5 ± 0.5 mm at baseline and significantly increased (9.9 ± 0.5 mm; p < 0.0001) at 6 months. Concomitantly, GW significantly decreased from baseline (5.8 ± 1.2 mm) to 6 months (4.9 ± 1.1 mm; p < 0.008), as did GD (from 2.6 ± 2.0 mm to 1.1 ± 1.9 mm; p < 0.0001). In contrast to their pre-operative satisfaction level, the majority (≥73%) of patients were very satisfied post-operatively with gingival and tooth display, when smiling or talking, and with maxillary anterior tooth size and shape. All patients would undergo the procedure again and would recommend it to someone with a similar problem.
CONCLUSION: Aesthetic crown lengthening surgery results in high levels of patient satisfaction and predictable and stable outcomes in the short term.