Journal of clinical periodontology · 2013
Disparity in embrasure fill and papilla height between tooth- and implant-borne fixed restorations in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Cosyn Jan, Raes Magalie, Packet Mathieu, Cleymaet Roberto, De Bruyn Hugo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to compare inter-proximal fill and papilla height between different embrasures.
MATERIAL & METHODS: One hundred and fifty non-smoking consecutive patients (mean age 54, range 32-73; 63 males and 87 females) without periodontal disease were selected in a multidisciplinary practice during regular supportive care. All had been treated for multiple tooth loss in the anterior maxilla at least 1 year earlier by means of a fixed restoration on teeth (n = 50) or implants (n = 100) using straightforward procedures (without hard and/or soft tissue augmentation). Embrasure fill was assessed by means of Jemt's papilla index and papilla height was registered following local anaesthesia by means of bone sounding by one clinician.
RESULTS: Tooth-pontic and tooth-implant embrasures demonstrated comparable inter-proximal fill and papilla height (≥58% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height ≥4.1 mm). Between missing teeth, embrasure fill and papilla height were lower regardless of the embrasure type. The implant-implant and implant-pontic embrasure demonstrated comparable outcome (≤42% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height ≤ 3.3 mm; p ≥ 0.416), which was significantly poorer when compared to the pontic-pontic embrasure (82% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height 3.7 mm; p ≤ 0.019). Overall, papilla index and papilla height demonstrated a weak correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient: 0.198; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The re-establishment of a papilla is difficult when there is no tooth involved. In that scenario a short papilla should be expected and implant-borne restorations demonstrate the poorest outcome. Moreover, an implant with a pontic may not perform better than adjacent implants.
MATERIAL & METHODS: One hundred and fifty non-smoking consecutive patients (mean age 54, range 32-73; 63 males and 87 females) without periodontal disease were selected in a multidisciplinary practice during regular supportive care. All had been treated for multiple tooth loss in the anterior maxilla at least 1 year earlier by means of a fixed restoration on teeth (n = 50) or implants (n = 100) using straightforward procedures (without hard and/or soft tissue augmentation). Embrasure fill was assessed by means of Jemt's papilla index and papilla height was registered following local anaesthesia by means of bone sounding by one clinician.
RESULTS: Tooth-pontic and tooth-implant embrasures demonstrated comparable inter-proximal fill and papilla height (≥58% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height ≥4.1 mm). Between missing teeth, embrasure fill and papilla height were lower regardless of the embrasure type. The implant-implant and implant-pontic embrasure demonstrated comparable outcome (≤42% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height ≤ 3.3 mm; p ≥ 0.416), which was significantly poorer when compared to the pontic-pontic embrasure (82% Jemt's score 3; mean papilla height 3.7 mm; p ≤ 0.019). Overall, papilla index and papilla height demonstrated a weak correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient: 0.198; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The re-establishment of a papilla is difficult when there is no tooth involved. In that scenario a short papilla should be expected and implant-borne restorations demonstrate the poorest outcome. Moreover, an implant with a pontic may not perform better than adjacent implants.