Restorative Collaboration - Crown Lengthening_05092022 Flashcards
Crown Lengthening definition (AAP Glossary)
Surgical procedure to increase the length of supragingival tooth structure for restorative purposes by:
- Apically positioning the gingival margin
- With or without removal of supporting bone
Supracrestal tissue attachment:
- Composition and boundaries
- Dimensions (Gargiulo and Vacek)
- Supracrestal tissue attachment replaced the term BW (2017 WW - Jepsen 2018).
- Composed of connective tissue and epithelial attachment and extends from the crest of bone to the most apical extent of the pocket of sulcus.
- Dimensions:
Gagiulo (1961) –> defined it as “Physiologic dentogingival unit”
- JE = 0.97
- CT = 1.07
- JE + CT = 2.04
Vacek (1994)
- JE = 1.14
- CT = 0.77
- JE + CT = 1.91
CT is the most consistent measurement
Signs of supracrestal tissue attachment violation?
- Gingival inflammation, hyperplasia and recession
- BOP
- Pocket formation
- CALoss
- Bone Loss
Due to destructive inflam. response to microbial plaque located at deeply placed restorative margins.
Padbury, Eber and Wang:
Deep subG margins result in: ill-fitted restorations that violate the STA and compromise Perio health
CLP is indicated to :
- Re-establish STA (Carnevale 1983)
- Expose greater amount of tooth structure to support future restorations (Allen 1993).
A study about the relationship betw. SubG crown margins and gingival inflammation
Newcomb 1974:
Compared Ging. inflammation (Loe and Silness GI) in 66 crowned anterior teeth with contralateral uncrowned controls. 15 months FU.
Divided into 4 groups based on distance from CM to crevice base (BC):
- Group 1: CM-BC = 0.25 mm
- Group 4: CM-BC = 1 mm
There was a strong negative correlation between the CM-BC distance and the degree of gingival inflammation.
Study comparing Perio status (PI and GI) between crowned and natural teeth
Carnevale 1990
Retrospective Study comparing Perio status (PI and GI) between crowned and natural teeth (510 teeth each)
90% of the patients were on a recall schedule that required prophylaxis once every 3 months; 8% returned every 6 months and 2% once a month.
Results:
- NSSD in GI and PI between the crowned and natural teeth
- Gingival status of the crowned teeth was good, irrespective of the position of the crown margin (subG, at GM or supraG).
Influence of restorative margins on periodontal tissues over 26 years (Longitudinal study)
Schatzle 2001
- CAL loss could be detected clinically 1-3 years after fabrication of subG restorations.
- GI scores at restorations improved with time –> SubG margins become supraG due to recession.
- A subsequent “burn-out” effect was suggested
A study about the relationship between overhang size and bone loss
Jeffcoat and Howell 1980:
Patient records (PA and BW radiographs) were checked to detect overhanging amalgam restorations.
100 teeth with overhangs and 100 teeth without
Overhangs were classified into:
- Small: occupy < 20% of IP space
- Medium: occupy 20-50% of IP space
- Large: occupy > 51% of IP space
- Severity of bone loss increased with the size of overhang
- Greater bone loss around teeth with large overhangs
- Small overhangs did not cause SS increased AB loss (unlike large and medium ones)
Study about the benefit of overhang removal?
Rodriguez-Ferrer 1980
Furcation Arrows: Sensitivity and specificity?
Deas 2006
Sensitivity: 38.7%
Specificity: 92.2%
Study clarifying the relationship between amalgam restorations with subgingival overhanging margins and gingival health
Rodriguez-Ferrer 1980
- Overhanging amalgam margin was the sole variable parameter
- 26 defective premolar and molar amalgams were paired with similarly defective restorations in the same mouths, test and control being allocated randomly.
Test: Overhang removal , Control: Overhang left, OH and professional care were the same
PI, GI and PD were recorded at different time points (0, 4, 8 & 12 weeks):
- BL: NSSD betw. test and Ctrl
- Other timepoints: SSD (Greatest at 4 weeks)
Conclusions:
- Overhangs may be the only clinically sig. feature of amalgam related to pathogenesis of Perio disease
- Corrective of defective resto. should be part of the initial phase of Perio therapy
- Other time points:
Smile line, Gummy smile and golden proportion
Smile Line
- High (20%): < 20% of clinical crown is displayed
- Average (69%): 69% of clinical crown is displayed
- Low (11%): 2 mm of ging. is displayed
Gummy Smile
(12% prevalence)
- ≥ 4 mm ging to lip distance is considered unattractive smile
Golden proportion
Width ratio of an anterior tooth in relation to adj. tooth should be 1: 0.618
Active vs. Passive Eruption?
Active eruption: process by which a tooth moves from its germinative position to its functional position in occlusion with the opposing arch
Passive eruption: Tooth exposure secondary to apical migration of the GM to a location at or slightly coronal to CEJ
Potential causes of excessive gingival display
- Gingivitis induced pseudopockets
- Drug-induced ging. enlargment
- Altered passive eruption
3 Potential risk factors for gummy smile (GS)?
Cite a study
Conditions that may cause (GS)
- Hypermobile upper lip (HUL)
- APE
- Vertical maxillary excess
- Other: Short UL (SUL), genetics, dental plaque, medications
Cetin 2020: found that age (OR:0.9), HUL (OR: 18.8) and APE (OR: 8.8) were sig. risk factors. Gender and SUL were not sig. factors