Radiographical Assessment of Fixed Partial Denture Abutment Teeth

Öz

Purpose: Most of dental patients prefer reconstruction with fixed partial dentures (FPD) rather than removable ones because of comfort, psychological and social advantages of FPDs. However, a FPD which does not implement required standards and rules of FPDs may cause different dental problems. The aim of the present study was evaluation FPDs in terms of complying Ante’s law, secondary caries and periapical lesions radiographically.

Methods: A total of 380 panoramic radiograph belongs to patients applied to the clinics of Akdeniz University Faculty of Dentistry examined in the present study. Current abutments of FPDs were evaluated in terms of complies with the Ante’s law, secondary caries and periapical lesions radiographically. Periapical lesion classification was performed according to periapical index (PAI). Statistical analysis were performed using SPSS 20.1 and Microsoft Excel software program.

Results: The present study comprised panoramic radiographs belongs to166 women and 214 men with an age range of 25 to 83 years old (46.0+- 11.1 years for men and 49,4+-11,0 years for women). No relationship was observed between gender and caries formation (p>0,05). Distribution of periapical lesions was found 23% class III, 1.8% class IV, 1.3% class V according to PAI. More caries were observed among the restorations which doesn’t meet the requirements of Ante’s law (p<0,05).

Conclusions: According to the results of the present study, the rehabilitation of edentulous regions with conventional FPDs may cause different periapical pathologies and caries. Careful evaluation of abutments regarding to Ante’s law and periapical status may decrease the complications that could be observed in long term prognosis of FPDs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• fixed partial denture
• periapical index
• Ante’s law

Sabit Protez Destek Dişlerinin Radyolojik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Dişsizlik problem çeken hastaların çoğu, psikolojik ve sosyal nedenler ve ayrıca sağladığı konfor nedeniyle hareketli protezler yerine sabit protezleri tercih etmektedir. Bununla birlikte, temel standartları sağlamayan bir sabit protez çeşitli dental problemlere sebep olabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı sabit protezlerin ante kuralına uyumluluk, seconder çürük oluşumu ve periapikal lezyon açısından incelenmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma için Akdeniz Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’ne başvuran 380 hastaya ait panoramic radyograf incelendi. Üzerinde sabit protetik restorasyon bulunan destek dişler seconder çürük ve periapikal lezyon açısından, restorasyonlar Ante kuralına uyup uymamaları açısından değerlendirildi. Periapikal lezyon sınıflandırması Periapikal İndeks’e (PAI) gore yapıldı. İstatistiksel analizler SPSS 20.1 ve Microsoft Excel yazılımları kullanıldı.

Bulgular: İncelenen radyografların 166’sı kadınlar, 214’ü erkeklere aitti ve yaş aralığı 25-83’ tü (46.0+- 11.1 erkekler ve 49,4+-11,0 kadınlar). Cinsiyet ve çürük oluşumu arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yoktu (p>0,05). Periapikal İndekse gore lezyon dağılımı %23 sınıf III, %1,8 sınıf IV, %1,3 sınıf V şeklindeydi. Ante kuralına uymayan restorasyonlarda daha fazla çürük oluşumu gözlendi (p<0,05).

Sonuçlar: Çalışma sonuçlarına göre dişsiz bölgelerin geleneksel sabit protezler ile tedavisi periapikal patoloji ve çürük oluşumuna sebebiyet verebilir. Destek dişlerin periapikal açıdan ve Ante kuralına uyum açısından dikkatli değerlendirilmesi sabit protezlerde oluşacak uzun dönem komplikasyonları azaltabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• fixed partial denture
• periapical index
• Ante’s law

Kaynakça

1. 1. Ballini A, Capodiferro S, Toia M, Cantore S, Favia G, De Frenza G, et al. Evidence-based dentistry: what's new? International journal of medical sciences. 2007;4(3):174.
2. 2. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs. Dental materials. 2015;31(6):624-39.
3. 3. Jun S, Mahapatra C, Lee H, Kim H, Lee J. Biological effects of provisional resin materials on human dental pulp stem cells. Operative dentistry. 2017;42(2):E81-E92.
4. 4. Schmalz G, Galler KM. Biocompatibility of biomaterials–Lessons learned and considerations for the design of novel materials. Dental Materials. 2017;33(4):382-93.
5. 5. Janeczek M, Herman K, Fita K, Dudek K, Kowalczyk-Zając M, Czajczyńska-Waszkiewicz A, et al. Assessment of Heat Hazard during the Polymerization of Selected Light-Sensitive Dental Materials. BioMed research international. 2016;2016.
6. 6. Pol C, Raghoebar G, Kerdijk W, Boven C, Cune M, Meijer H. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of three‐unit fixed dental prostheses: are the results of two abutment implants comparable to the results of two abutment teeth? Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2017.
7. 7. Orstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM. The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1986;2(1):20-34.
8. 8. Jepsen A. Root surface measurement and a method for x-ray determination of root surface area. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 1963;21(1):35-46.

9. 9. Walter MH, Wolf BH, Wolf AE, Boening KW. Six-year clinical performance of all-ceramic crowns with alumina cores. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2006;19(2).
10. 10. Valderhaug J, Jokstad A, Ambjørnsen E, Norheim P. Assessment of the periapical and clinical status of crowned teeth over 25 years. Journal of Dentistry. 1997;25(2):97-105.
11. 11. Fradeani M, Redemagni M. An 11-year clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns: A retrospective study. Quintessence international. 2002;33(7).
12. 12. Bart I, Dobler B, Schmidlin K, Zwahlen M, Salvi GE, Lang NP, et al. Complication and failure rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses after 7 to 19 years in function. International journal of prosthodontics. 2012;25(4).
13. 13. Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: a retrospective study. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2008;21(4).
14. 14. Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. An 18-year retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes with metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2011;24(4).
15. 15. Brägger U, Aeschlimann S, Bürgin W, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001;12(1):26-34.
16. 16. De Backer H, Van Maele G, De Moor N, Van den Berghe L. Survival of complete crowns and periodontal health: 18-year retrospective study. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2007;20(2).
17. 17. Hochman N, Mitelman L, Hadani P, Zalkind M. A clinical and radiographic evaluation of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) prepared by dental school students: a retrospective study. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2003;30(2):165-70.
18. 18. Randow K GP, Zoger B. Technical failures and some related clinical complications in extensive fixed prosthodontics. An epidemiological study of long-term clinical quality. Acta odontologica Scandinavica. 1986;44(4):241-55.
19. 19. Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR. A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56(4):416-21.
20. 20. Libby G, Arcuri MR, LaVelle WE, Hebl L. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(2):127-31.
21. 21. Ridao‐Sacie C, Segura‐Egea J, Fernández‐Palacín A, Bullón‐Fernández P, Ríos‐Santos J. Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography. International endodontic journal. 2007;40(6):433-40.
22. 22. Eriksen HM, Bjertness E, Brstavik D. Prevalence and quality of endodontic treatment in an urban adult population in Norway. Dental Traumatology. 1988;4(3):122-6.
23. 23. Allard U, Palmqvist S. A radiographic survey of periapical conditions in elderly people in a Swedish county population. Dental Traumatology. 1986;2(3):103-8.
24. 24. Pak JG, Fayazi S, White SN. Prevalence of periapical radiolucency and root canal treatment: a systematic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of endodontics. 2012;38(9):1170-6.
25. 25. De Cleen MJ, Schuurs AH, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. Periapical status and prevalence of endodontic treatment in an adult Dutch population. Int Endod J. 1993;26(2):112-9.
26. 26. De Moor RJ, Hommez GM, De Boever JG, Delme KI, Martens GE. Periapical health related to the quality of root canal treatment in a Belgian population. Int Endod J. 2000;33(2):113-20.
27. 27. Lupi-Pegurier L, Bertrand MF, Muller-Bolla M, Rocca JP, Bolla M. Periapical status, prevalence and quality of endodontic treatment in an adult French population. Int Endod J. 2002;35(8):690-7.
28. 28. Ridao-Sacie C, Segura-Egea JJ, Fernandez-Palacin A, Bullon P, Rios-Santos JV. Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography. International Endodontic Journal. 2007;40(6):433-40.
29. 29. Ante I. The fundamental principles of abutments. Mich State Dent Soc Bull. 1926;8(14):232-57.30. Balevi B. Ante's law is not evidence based. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2012;143(9):1011-2.
30. 31. Leempoel PJ, Eschen S, De Haan AF, Van't Hof MA. An evaluation of crowns and bridges in a general dental practice. J Oral Rehabil. 1985;12(6):515-28.
31. 32. Leempoel PJ, van Rossum GM, de Haan AF, Reintjes AG. Bridges in general dental practices: a descriptive study of the types of bridges and patients. J Oral Rehabil. 1989;16(4):381-6.
32. 33. Walton TR. Changes in patient and FDP profiles following the introduction of osseointegrated implant dentistry in a prosthodontic practice. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(2):127-35.
33. 34. Nyman S, Ericsson I. The capacity of reduced periodontal tissues to support fixed bridgework. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1982;9(5):409-14.
34. 35. Leempoel P, Käyser A, Rossum G, HAAN A. The survival rate of bridges. A study of 1674 bridges in 40 Dutch general practices. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 1995;22(5):327-30.