RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF OVERHANG RESTORATIONS IN THE POSTERIOR REGION WITH ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS BY CONE BEAM COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY

Year 2023, , 424 - 428, 21.08.2023

Sevde Gül Batmaz , Damla Soydan Çabuk

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1161701

Abstract

Background: To determine the frequency and localization of overhang restorations by retrospectively examining cone-beam computed tomography images and to evaluate the destruction of the alveolar bone in three dimensions over time.
Material and Methods: Patients who had at least one proximal restoration such as subgingival amalgams, composite or glass ionomer restorations (proximal overhang edges), cervical abrasions, class V restorations, with unrestored contralateral teeth were included in this study. All cone-beam computed tomographies examined in the study were taken with the Planmeca Promax 3D (Planmeca Inc. Helsinki, Finland) device. None of the cone-beam computed tomographs were obtained specifically for this study. After examining the tomography of the overhang restorations; The type, location and patient information of the teeth were recorded. Wilcoxon sign test, Mann Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were used in the statistical analysis of the data. Significance level was accepted as % 95.
Results: % 52.6 of the patients were female, % 47.4 were male, and % 50.9 of the overhang restoration teeth consisted of molars and % 49.1 of premolars. % 54.38 of the overhang restorations examined are located in the maxilla and % 45.62 are located in the mandibula. Alveolar bone destruction measurement values in the mesial and distal regions of teeth with overhanging restoration were higher than the measurement values of healthy teeth located on the opposite side (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Overhang restorations were mostly observed in the maxilla and mesial surfaces of the teeth.

Keywords

Alveolar bone, bone loss, cone beam computed tomography, overhang restoration

Posterior Bölgede Taşkın Yapılmış Restorasyonların Alveolar Kemik Kaybıyla İlişkisinin Konik Işınlı Bilgisayar Tomografisi ile Retrospektif Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Retrospektif olarak konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntülerini inceleyerek taşkın restorasyonların sıklığını ve lokalizasyonunu belirlemek ve zaman içerisinde alveol kemikte meydana getirdiği yıkımın üç boyutlu olarak değerlendirilmesini sağlamaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmaya subgingival amalgamlar, kompozit veya cam iyonomer restorasyonlar (proksimal taşkın kenarlar), servikal abrazyonlar, sınıf V restorasyonlar gibi en az bir proksimal restorasyonu olan, karşı taraftaki dişleri restore edilmemiş olan hastalar dahil edildi. Çalışmada incelenilen tüm konik ışınlı bilgisayar tomografiler Planmeca Promax 3D (Planmeca Inc. Helsinki, Finlandiya) cihazı ile çekildi. Konik ışınlı bilgisayar tomografilerin hiçbiri bu çalışma için özel olarak elde edilmedi. Taşkın restorasyonların tomografileri incelendikten sonra; dişlerin tipi, yeri ve hasta bilgileri kaydedildi. Verilerin istatistiksel analizinde Wilcoxon işaret testi, Mann Whitney U testi, Spearman korelasyon kullanıldı. Anlamlılık düzeyi %95 olarak kabul edildi.
Bulgular: Hastaların % 52.6’sı kadın, % 47.4’ü erkek ve taşkın restorasyonlu dişlerin % 50.9’unun molar diş ve % 49.1’inin premolar dişlerden oluşmaktadır. İncelenen taşkın restorasyonların % 54.38’i üst çenede, % 45.62’si alt çenede yer almaktadır. Taşkın restorasyona sahip dişlerin mezial ve distal bölgelerinde yapılan alveol kemik yıkımı ölçüm değerleri, karşı tarafta yer alan sağlıklı dişlerinin ölçüm değerlerine göre daha yüksektir (p<0.05).
Sonuç: Taşkın restorasyonlar en çok maksillada ve dişlerin mezial yüzeylerinde gözlendi.

Keywords

Alveol kemik, kemik kaybı, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, taşkın restorasyon

References

• 1. Duruk G, Gürbüz T. Çocuklarda Diş Çürükleri ve Restorasyonların Periodontal Sağlıkla İlişkisi: Bir Literatür Derlemesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28(3):421-8.
• 2. Brunsvold MA, Lane JJ. The prevalence of overhanging dental restorations and their relationship to periodontal disease. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1990;17(2):67-72.
• 3. Diniz M, Cordeiro R, Ferreira-Zandona A. Detection of caries around amalgam restorations on approximal surfaces. Operative Dentistry. 2016;41(1):34-43.
• 4. Ilday N, Çelik N, Dilsiz A, Alp H, Aydin T, Seven N, et al. The effects of overhang amalgam restorations on levels of cytokines, gingival crevicular fluid volume and some periodontal parameters. American journal of dentistry. 2016;29(5).
• 5. Matvijenko VB, Živković MV, Mitić AD, Popović JZ, Kostić LB, Živković DM, et al. Effect of irregular interproximal dental restorations on periodontal status. Acta stomatologica Naissi. 2012;28(65):1144-54.
• 6. Lang NP, Kiel RA, Anderhalden K. Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1983;10(6):563-78.
• 7. Hakkarainen K, Ainamo J. Influence of overhanging posterior tooth restorations on alveolar bone height in adults. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1980;7(2):114-20.
• 8. Mohan R, Singh A, Gundappa M. Three-dimensional imaging in periodontal diagnosis–Utilization of cone beam computed tomography. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2011;15(1):11.
• 9. Chitralekha C, Prasad PAK, Nalini HE, Devi RR. Cone‑beam Computed Tomography: Three‑dimensional Imaging in Periodontal Diagnosis. Journal of Indian Academy of Dental Specialist Researchers¦ Volume. 2017;4(1).
• 10. Eick JD, Robinson SJ, Chappell RP, Cobb CM, Spencer P. The dentinal surface: its influence on dentinal adhesion. Part III. Quintessence international. 1993;24(8).
• 11. Razzoog M. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: Direct composite resins versus ceramic inlays. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2000;83(3):A1.
• 12. Kny K, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Sindel J, Gadsch W, Petschelt A, editors. Marginal behaviour of totally bonded posterior composite restorations in vivo. Journal of Dental Research; 1998: Sage Publications INC 2455 Teller RD, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA.
• 13. Krejci I, Besek M, Lutz F. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. American journal of Dentistry. 1994;7(1):27-30.
• 14. Chan DC, Chung AK. Management of idiopathic subgingival amalgam hypertrophy–The common amalgam overhang. Operative dentistry. 2009;34(6):753-8.
• 15. Tavangar M, Darabi F, Tayefeh DR, Vadiati SB, Jahandideh Y, Kazemnejad LE, et al. The prevalence of restoration overhang in patients referred to the dental clinic of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. 2016.
• 16. Ibraheem AF, Al-Safi KA. Prevalence of overhang margins in posterior amalgam restorations and alveolar bone resorption. Journal of baghdad college of dentistry. 2005;17(1).
• 17. Quadir F, Ali Abidi S, Ahmed S. Overhanging amalgam restorations by undergraduate students. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014;24(7):485-8.
• 18. Boteva E, Karayasheva D, Peycheva K. Frequency of iatrogenic changes caused from overhang restorations. Acta Medica Bulgarica. 2015;42(2):30-5.
• 19. Friedl K, Hiller K, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Operative dentistry. 1995;20(1):34-8.
• 20. Mjör IA, Qvist V. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. Journal of dentistry. 1997;25(1):25-30.
• 21. Pack A. The amalgam overhang dilemma: a review of causes and effects, prevention, and removal. The New Zealand dental journal. 1989;85(380):55-8.
• 22. Bayat S, Talaeipour AR, Sarlati F. Detection of simulated periodontal defects using cone-beam CT and digital intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2016;45(6):20160030.
• 23. Jeffcoat MK, Wang IC, Reddy MS. Radiographic diagnosis in periodontics. Periodontology 2000. 1995;7(1):54-68.
• 24. Temur KT, Kesici H. Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografinin Periodontolojide Kullanımı. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi. 2018;27(2):175-87.
• 25. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. Journal of periodontology. 2006;77(7):1261-6.
• 26. Fonseca RB, Branco CA, Soares PV, Correr-Sobrinho L, Haiter-Neto F, Fernandes-Neto AJ, et al. Radiodensity of base, liner and luting dental materials. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2006;10(2):114-8.
• 27. Espelid I, Tveit A, Erickson R, Keck S, Glasspoole E. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dental Materials. 1991;7(2):114-7.
• 28. Opdam N, Roeters F, Feilzer A, Smale I. A radiographic and scanning electron microscopic study of approximal margins of Class II resin composite restorations placed in vivo. Journal of dentistry. 1998;26(4):319-27.