Classic Lit LITERATURE Flashcards
Vacek et al. 1994
(Dimensions of BW) IJPRD The Dimensions of the Human Dentogingival Junction 10 adult cadavers 171 tooth surfaces from block sections Sulcus depth - 1.32mm Epi attach - 1.14mm CT attach - 0.77mm Bio Width - 1.91mm CTa (most constant) CTa & EPa ( Post. > Ant) EPa (^ w/ sub-G resto) BW (Molars > Ant)
Wennstrom and Lindhe 1983
(does width of KG matter?)
JCP
Role of attached gingiva for maintenance of periodontal health (dogs)
7 beagles (split mouth)
R - induced perio - remove KG - FGG
L - 1 quad remove KG - 1 quad leave alone
Results:
FGG = more KG AND attached gingiva - no change in gingival margin
PLAQUE CONTROL LEAD TO NO LOSS OF ATTACHMENT REGARDLESS OF KG/AG
Armitage et al. 1977
(Accuracy of perio probing) JCP Microscopic evaluation of clinical measurements of connective tissue attachment levels 9 Beagles probes fixed in healthy, gingivitis, and perio sulci Distance to apical JE Healthy - 0.39mm short Gingivitis - 0.1mm short Perio - 0.24mm beyond
Probes are not a precise measurement of CT attachment
Inflammation influences probe penetration
Histo vs Clinical sulcus differs
Karring et al. 1975
(does CT cause KG epi differentiation?)
JPR
The role of gingival connective tissue in determining epithelial differentiation
9 monkeys
CT grafts from KG and non-KG donor sites placed in pouches in made alveolar mucosa
KG recipient: less inflammatory response, healed as KG
non-KG recipient: more inflammation, healed as normal mucosa (non-KG)
Previous arguments were that healing was determined by response to mechanical stimuli > adapt to functional requirements.
Magnusson et al. 1983
(Is LJE as good as CT?)
JCP
A long junctional epithelium - a locus minoris resistance in plaque infection?
4 monkeys
32 teeth (8/mnky)
Ligature induced perio then enhanced/non-enhanced plaque accumulation vs no perio and enhanced/non-enhanced plaque accumulation
Results:
Infiltrated CT was similar similar in both non-enhanced plaque accumulation
No difference in inflammatory extant in LJE group vs normal group
-LJE does not impair barrier function in comparison to CT
McHugh 1971
(to determine if the col is the area of greatest vulnerability for perio disease)
JPR
The Interdental Gingivae
24 monkeys
Block sections B-L
Identified 4 zones of epi
1-2-3-4-3-2-1 (4-col)
1/2 - thick epi facial/lingual
3 - thick epi part way down the interproximal slope
4 - thinner epi (REE) at base of IP slope
Col = 3 and 4
Mesial and Distal aspects of the Col CAN present with REE containing amaeloblasts
True (central) col does not contain amaeloblasts
COL CORRELATED WITH PRESENCE AND SEVERITY OF GINGIVITIS COMPARED TO BUCCAL/LINGUAL
MOST PLAQUE ACCUMULATION
Tenenbaum and Tenenbaum 1986
JCP
clinical study of the width of attached gingiva in deciduous, transitional, and permanent dentition
Primary AG increases with age
Permanent SD decreases
Primary: Max C and L have most. Mand Ca and 1M have least
Permanent: Max 1M has most, mand Ca has least
Green 1962
Loss of stippling is one of the earliest signs of inflammation
Bowers 1963
AG Range 1-9 mm; Greatest: incisors; Least: premolars; Max>Mand. Frenum/muscle attachments assoc. with narrow zone of AG
Voigt et al. 1978
Range 1-8 mm; increased from later incisors (1.3mm) to the 1st and 2nd molar (4.7mm). Greatest width in 1
st molar
Decreased from primary to permanent dentition.
Lang and Loe 1972
KTW >2 mm (w/ 1mm AG) showed less gingival inflammation.
Cortellini and
Bissada 2018
A minimum amount of KT is not needed to prevent attachment loss when good OH are present.
- But attached gingiva (2 mm of KG and 1 mm of AG) is important to
maintain gingival health in patients with inadequate plaque control.
Thin-scalloped,” “thick-scalloped,”
and “thick-flat” periodontal biotypes (based on Zweers 2014)
Cook et al. 2011
Thin periodontal biotype (based on visibility) was
significantly related to thinner labial plate thickness (50% less), increased distance from CEJ to alveolar crest and narrow keratinized tissue width.
Ainamo and Loe 1966
Free gingival groove only present in 1/3 of normal gingiva
Winning et al., 2017
Effect of periodontitis on glycemic control: periodontal inflammation associated with poorer glycemic control in individuals with DM + increased incidence of DM in longitudinal prospective studies
Jepsen et al., 2018
More severe hyperglycemia is associated with higher magnitude of perio
Shlossman et al. (1990)
In all age groups diabetic patients had a higher prevalence of periodontitis. SD in CAL and BL between test and control.
-Cross-sectional -Relationship between T2D and periodontitis evaluated
Diabetes is a risk factor for periodontitis.
Tsai et al. (2002)
Poorly controlled diabetes is associated with higher prevalence of severe periodontitis
D’Aiuto 2018
Aim: effects of periodontal treatment on glycemic control in patients with type 2 DM
264pt with DM2/mod-sev perio/>or= 15teeth
Baseline HbA1c: 8.1
Test group: Intesive Perio Treatment (SRP/Surg/3mrc)
Control: Supra-g scaling/polishing same interval
12mo
65% IPC had 04.% reduction HbA1c
37% IPC had 0.9% reduction HbA1c
Intensive perio therapy reduced HbA1c
Sanz et al. 2018
Consensus report: International Diabetes Federation and EFP
1) Diabetics with Perio have higher HbA1c
2) Perio pts have higher risk of developing Diabetes, insulin resistance and hyperglycemia.
3) Perio tx can reduce HbA1 by .3-.5% in 3mo
4) Patients newly diagnosed with diabetes should have an oral exam
Tonetti et al. 2007
120pts with severe perio - Supra scaling vs normal scaling
Nonsurgical therapy resulted in short-term systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction but by 6 months improved clinical outcomes were sig associated with improved endothelial function.
Ide et al 2016
Perio was associated with a greater rate of decline in alzhimers patients
Michaud et al. (2018)
severe perio is sig associated with increased risk of cancer (HR 1.24)
-strong and sig associations for lung (4x) (HR 2.33) and colorectal cancer (50%^) (HR 2.12)
Kan et al 2010
Thin - 50% - delicate, friable, almost translucent
Probe visibility
Thin =1mm
Thick >1mm (not visible)
Hwang and Wang 2006
Flap thickness <1mm is reduced probability of complete root coverage in CAF
Cairo et al 2011
RT1 - Gingival recession with no loss of interproximal attachment (100% coverage likely)
RT2 - Gingival recession with loss of interproximal attachment that is less than or eaqual to the loss of buccal attachment. (full coverage unpredictable)
RT3 - Gingival recession with loss of interproximal attachment that exceeds the loss of buccal attachment (full coverage not possible)
Jepsen et al 2018
Gingival phenotype - GT and KTW
Bone morphotype
GT - probe visibility (Kan 2010)
KTW
Tarnow 1992
Distance from Alveolar crest to contact determines papilla fill
5mm - 100%
6mm - 56%
7mm - 27%
Zander & Hurzeler 1958
Cementum is thinnest in coronal 1/3 and thickest at the apex
Rupprecht et al. 2001
Fenestrations most often: Maxillary 1st molar
Dehiscence most often: Mandibular canines
Coslet 1977
Classification of Altered Passive Eruption Numbers - KG width Letters - Bone height Gingival margin is always incisal to CEJ 1) Adequate KG 2) Inadequate KG A) CEJ-Bone ~1.5mm/normal B) CEJ-Bone 0mm
Rams et al. 1994
Presence of crestal lamina dura showed positive association with clinical periodontal stability (high NEGATIVE predictive value)
Goodson et al. 1984
Attachment loss precedes radiographic bone loss by 6-8 months
Ortman 1982
Minimum bone mineral loss needed to detect a change radiographically is 30%
