Clinical advances in periodontics · 2024
Digital assessment of supracrestal tissue attachment and its correlation with dentogingival components.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Abdulkarim Hesham H, Antoine Nathan M, Wang Mary Ying-Fang, Rosales Elio Reyes, Miley D Douglas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to measure, in vivo, the supracrestal tissue attachment dimensions (STADs) by means of a noninvasive digital method and to investigate the association between STADs and gingival thickness (GT), tooth position, tooth length, tooth width, keratinized tissue width (KTW), buccal bone thickness (BBT), and bone crest (BC) level.
METHODS: Nineteen periodontally healthy subjects who previously received full mouth periodontal charting, cone beam computed tomography, and intraoral scan for the purpose of implant planning were included in the study. A digital imaging software was used for the superimposition of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine and stereolithography files, along with hard and soft tissue measurements. Pearson's correlation and ANOVA statistical analyses were used to investigate potential trends between STADs and other dentogingival components.
RESULTS: A total of 203 teeth were assessed, with an average STADs of 2.05 mm (±0.99 mm). STADs were larger in mandibular than maxillary teeth (p-value <0.001) and decreased from anterior to posterior teeth. STADs exhibited an inverse relationship with BBTs and GTs (p-value <0.001) and the KTW (p-value = 0.05). Positive correlations were found between GT and BBT (p-value <0.001), whereas both were negatively correlated with the distance between the cementoenamel junction and BC (p-values 0.019 and 0.006, respectively) and positively correlated with KTW (p-value <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the dynamic nature of STA relative to tooth position. Additionally, it explored the intricate relationships of STADs with various dentogingival components.
KEY POINTS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study represents the first application of CBCTs, intraoral scans, and clinical probe depths for noninvasive supracrestal tissue attachment measurements. This study advocates for a personalized assessment of supracrestal attachments, incorporating tooth position and other dentogingival components. The study emphasizes the importance for practitioners to consider the specific patient gingival phenotypes during restorative or surgical planning to avoid adverse outcomes.
METHODS: Nineteen periodontally healthy subjects who previously received full mouth periodontal charting, cone beam computed tomography, and intraoral scan for the purpose of implant planning were included in the study. A digital imaging software was used for the superimposition of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine and stereolithography files, along with hard and soft tissue measurements. Pearson's correlation and ANOVA statistical analyses were used to investigate potential trends between STADs and other dentogingival components.
RESULTS: A total of 203 teeth were assessed, with an average STADs of 2.05 mm (±0.99 mm). STADs were larger in mandibular than maxillary teeth (p-value <0.001) and decreased from anterior to posterior teeth. STADs exhibited an inverse relationship with BBTs and GTs (p-value <0.001) and the KTW (p-value = 0.05). Positive correlations were found between GT and BBT (p-value <0.001), whereas both were negatively correlated with the distance between the cementoenamel junction and BC (p-values 0.019 and 0.006, respectively) and positively correlated with KTW (p-value <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the dynamic nature of STA relative to tooth position. Additionally, it explored the intricate relationships of STADs with various dentogingival components.
KEY POINTS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study represents the first application of CBCTs, intraoral scans, and clinical probe depths for noninvasive supracrestal tissue attachment measurements. This study advocates for a personalized assessment of supracrestal attachments, incorporating tooth position and other dentogingival components. The study emphasizes the importance for practitioners to consider the specific patient gingival phenotypes during restorative or surgical planning to avoid adverse outcomes.