Background The application of vertical margins for crown preparations is increasing in popularity but limited long-term clinical outcome data exist.Aim To audit clinical outcomes for 73 teeth after vertical preparation for knife-edge zirconia crowns on posterior teeth in general practice.Methods In total, 73 posterior teeth had knife-edge zirconia crowns placed after vertical finish line preparation. The outcomes for these teeth were analysed from a retrospective audit of clinical records.Results The mean follow-up time was 62 months (SD: 21 months; range: 12-93). Eight teeth experienced complications during the follow-up period, with two of these teeth ultimately being extracted (one due to tooth fracture and one due to caries at the crown margin). The remaining six teeth were still functioning. Three of these had crown replacements, one required re-root canal treatment and two teeth (in the same patient) had unstable periodontitis which worsened since placement of crowns. Only the patient with unstable periodontitis showed any change in alveolar bone height on radiographic follow-up; 68 teeth with radiographic follow-up available showed no changes in alveolar bone levels. The mean bleeding score for the crowned teeth was higher than the mean bleeding score for the control tooth, but this was not statistically significant.Conclusion This retrospective evaluation has shown favourable outcomes for 71 teeth after vertical preparation for knife-edge crowns. Longer follow-up is needed but the present results show that the technique is a viable procedure with potential advantages.

This clinical case describes a multidisciplinary retreatment of a patient with anterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) using minimally invasive restorations and a biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT).

A 56-year-old female patient, treated 30 years ago with a metal-ceramic FDP due to dental agenesis, presented a misfit prosthesis at the gingival margin, black spaces, and food retention at the pontics. Notably, tooth number 2.6 was absent, and she exhibited a left crossbite. Her chief complaint was the compromised esthetics of her restorations. Given her coagulation disorder, von Willebrand disease, she declined mucogingival surgery. A diagnostic wax-up and mock-up was performed to establish treatment goals. The initial phase involved periodontal, orthodontic, and implant treatment. The orthodontic treatment with aligners to correct the crossbite. Subsequently, bleaching and a second mock-up were conducted to guide prosthetic treatment. In the prosthodontic treatment, the abutment teeth were prepared using a vertical BOPT to remodel the gingival tissues, achieving the esthetic goal of repositioning the gingival margin without surgery. The provisional phase was critical for soft tissue remodeling and ensured clinical success. After stabilization of the soft tissues, a monolithic zirconia FDP was delivered, with a follow-up of 2 years.

A multidisciplinary treatment plan, utilizing a digital workflow, resulted in stable clinical and esthetic outcomes at the two-year follow-up, effectively retreating an anterior bridge using BOPT in a patient with a coagulation disorder that contraindicated complex surgical interventions.

To evaluate the clinical conditions of single-unit posterior restorations on teeth prepared without finishing line, after 5.6 years of clinical service.

50 crowns (25 zirconia-based (Zr) and 25 porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM)) were selected from 34 patients. The restorations were evaluated according to the California Dental Association (CDA) Quality Criteria, and periodontal variables were studied in the abutment teeth compared with the unrestored contralateral teeth. Variables were examined using Mann-Whitney and Pearson´s Chi-Square tests (α = 0.05). The success of the prosthesis was calculated using Kaplan-Meier test.

CDA Quality Criteria was considered satisfactory-excellent in all restorations except for one of them, due to chipping on a PFM crown. At, 66 months, the success rates for PFM and Zr crowns were 85.7 % and 100 %, respectively. The plaque index (PI) showed that the restored abutment teeth accumulated significantly less plaque than the control teeth, but the gingival index (GI) was statistically higher in the abutment teeth. In 80 % of cases the probing depth (PB) was ≤3 mm. In addition, in 21 % of the cases, gingival recession was less than 2 mm. The restoration material had a statistically significant effect on GI and PB, with Zr crowns showing less inflammation and less deep pockets than PFM restorations. On the contrary, greater gingival recession was found at the margins of the Zr crowns when compared to the PFM. No statistical differences were found between the two materials in the GI.

Cemented crowns on vertical preparations show good clinical behavior after 5 years. The periodontal parameters (PI, GI, PD) of the Zr restorations are significantly better than those of PFM, with the exception of gingival recession.

The use of restorations on vertically prepared teeth is a suitable alternative to classical horizontal preparations.

A comprehensive classification of structurally compromised teeth (SCT) was introduced.

Dental injuries or operative mismanagement undermine the structural integrity of the tooth abutment, reducing its biomechanical strength and rendering restorative procedures challenging. To standardize the overall pre-operative evaluations and determine the biological and mechanical features, a classification of the coronal and cervical tooth defects, as well as an attentive analysis of the most apical location of the residual cervical tooth structure along the whole perimeter and the most coronal location of the bucco/lingual residual structure was presented. Considering the residual cervical structure, five possible clinical scenarios were individuated with respect to the gingival margin, gingival sulcus, supracrestal tissue attachment and bone crest (BC). The latter prevents the isolation procedures rendering the adhesive restorations unfeasible. Instead, the location of the most apical portion of residual cervical structure within subgingival/intrasulcular depth (>1.5 mm above BC) can be considered restorable.

This classification is threefold: to enclose all the possible clinically encountered tooth defects, to identify the apical problems of SCT to appropriately manage the perio-restorative interfaces, and to evaluate the tooth resistance capacity of SCT, as to plan and perform the most adequate biomechanical restorative approach.

The present classification is proposed to provide a complete perspective of structurally compromised teeth to standardize the biologic and biomechanical evaluations during planning of restorative procedures.

To evaluate the effect of finish line design (chamfer and feather-edge) and ceramic type on the internal and marginal fits of fixed partial dentures on abutment teeth.

Two typodont mandibular casts, missing right first premolar tooth, received tooth preparation on canine and second premolar abutments (one cast with chamfer finish line and the other cast with feather-edge finish line). The preparation segment of each typodont model was scanned, 3D printed in resin, and then invested and casted in metal to obtain two metal models. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made for the metal models and poured in type IV stone. The stone models (n = 40) were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10): chamfer finish line with heat-pressed zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate fixed partial denture (CL), chamfer finish line with monolithic zirconia fixed partial denture (CZ), feather-edge finish line with heat-pressed zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate fixed partial denture (FL), and feather-edge finish line with monolithic zirconia fixed partial denture (FZ). After the fabrication of ceramic restoration, micro-computed tomography was used to evaluate the internal and marginal fits of each fixed partial denture. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05).

There were no significant interactions between preparation type, material type, and tooth type at any of the areas assessed. There was significant difference (p = 0.01) between CZ (59.15 ± 4.6 µm) and FZ (73.6 ± 17.1 µm) groups at the finish line area. Regarding the horizontal marginal discrepancy area, there were significant differences between CZ (62.65 ± 10.5 µm) and FZ (90.05 ± 5.6 µm) groups (p < 0.001), CL (77.45 ± 8.1 µm) and CZ (62.65 ± 10.5 µm) groups (p < 0.001), and FZ (90.05 ± 5.6 µm) and CL (77.45 ± 8.1 µm) groups (p < 0.001). At finish line area, there was a significant difference (p = 0.018) between feather-edge with canine (72.75 ± 13.3 µm) and chamfer with canine (59.05 ± 5.8 µm); however, there was no significant difference (p = 0.774) between feather-edge with premolar (69.45 ± 12 µm) and chamfer with premolar (65.1 ± 7.4 µm). Moreover, there was no significant difference (p = 0.886) between feather-edge with canine and feather-edge with premolar.

The internal and marginal fits of the ceramic fixed partial dentures can be affected by the finish line design and ceramic type. The feather-edge finish line had a negative impact on the marginal and internal fits of ceramic fixed partial dentures at certain measurement points. Regarding the effect of finish line design on abutment teeth, the difference in fit was only detected at the finish line area of the anterior abutment (canine) with the feather-edge finish line.

Periodontal health in the elderly is influenced by numerous factors, including systemic conditions, patient compliance, age-associated changes, and restorative procedures. The numerous comorbidities seen in the elderly necessitate individualized approaches for treatment planning. In this paper, we review how age, comorbidities, oral hygiene, and restorative dental procedures collectively influence the treatment and management of the periodontium in the elderly. The elderly population is predicted to double in 30 years, which will have an economic impact the dental profession needs to plan for. Preventative and noninvasive treatment, supportive periodontal therapy, and patient-specific maintenance plans are imperative to maintaining oral health in the older population. Multiple coexisting changes, including xerostomia, altered wound healing, altered bone physiology, altered microbiome, and diminished plaque control, can add complexity to periodontal management. Considerations of the patient's general health, the selected periodontal treatment plan, and the selected completed restorative procedures need to be considered. The influence of caries, fixed prosthodontics, partial dentures, shortened dental arch, and implant therapy can have unintended impacts on periodontal health in the elderly. Adverse periodontal outcomes in the elderly can be minimized by carefully assessing the patient's medical history, impact of medications, functional needs, properly finishing and contouring restorations to avoid plaque accumulation, and designing restorations to allow access for hygiene. Partial dentures can be a source of plaque accumulation leading to periodontal disease, caries, and recession around abutment teeth. A shortened dental arch should be considered as a functional and cost-effective alternative to partial dentures. With dental implants, the patient's tissue phenotype, keratinized tissue quantity, risk of peri-implantitis, and patient access for maintaining adequate oral hygiene are all important to consider. Implant risk-assessment tools show promise by providing a systematic approach for early diagnosis to avoid future complications.

To evaluate the benefit of resective surgical periodontal therapy (root amputation or resection, root separation, tunnelling) in periodontitis patients exhibiting class II and III furcation involvement (FI) compared with non-surgical treatment (SRP) or open flap debridement (OFD).

Outcomes were tooth survival (primary), vertical probing attachment gain, and reduction in probing pocket depth (secondary) evidenced by randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case series with ≥ 12 months of follow-up. Search was performed on 3 electronic databases from January 1998 to December 2018.

From a total of 683 articles, 66 studies were identified for full-text analysis and 7 studies finally included. Six hundred sixty-seven patients contributed 2,021 teeth with class II or III FI. Data were very heterogeneous regarding follow-up and distribution of FI. A total of 1,515 teeth survived 4 to 30.8 years after therapy. Survival ranged from 38%-94.4% (root amputation or resection, root separation), 62%-67% (tunnelling), 63%-85% (OFD) and 68%-80% (SRP). Overall, treatment provided better results for class II FI than class III.

Within their limits, the data indicate that in class II and III FI, SRP and OFD may result in similar survival rates as root amputation/resection, root separation or tunnelling.

To search the literature and to critically evaluate the findings on the periodontal outcomes of restorations and tooth-supported fixed prostheses.

PubMed was searched according to a systematic methodology, previously reported, but updated to include a larger database. Filters applied were: Case reports, clinical trial, review, guideline, randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and English. A narrative review was then synthesized to discuss periodontal outcomes related to restorations and tooth-supported fixed prostheses. Relevant data was organized into four sections: Direct restorations, indirect restorations, biologic width or supracrestal tissue attachment and tooth preparation/finish line design.

While increased gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss have been associated with subgingival restorations, intracrevicular margins do not cause periodontal diseases. Inflammation and bone loss occur, for both direct and indirect restorations, only with large overhangs. Different restorative materials are associated with different clinical responses when placed in the gingival sulcus or within the epithelial and connective tissue attachments. When the connective tissue attachment is removed, histological changes occur causing its apical shift and subsequent re-establishment. Gingival displacement during impression procedures can cause gingival recession. Emergence profile can have a range of values, not associated with periodontal diseases. Periodontal response appears to be clinically not different when compared among different finish line designs.

Contemporary procedures and materials used for the placement and fabrication of tooth-supported restorations and fixed prostheses are compatible with periodontal health when adequate patient education and motivation in self-performed oral hygiene are present. Periodontal diagnostic criteria should be thoroughly reviewed before fixed restorative treatments are planned and executed.

The main aim of the retrospective cohort study was to evaluate tooth survival after the endodontic treatment over a period of more than 20 years. Moreover, success of the treatment and the correlation between baseline parameters and the outcomes were analyzed, and causes were recorded.

Clinical records (including radiographs) of subjects treated with endodontic procedures (both primary and secondary (nonsurgical retreatment)) were collected and analyzed, covering a period of up to 29 years. Type of the treatment, technique, adequacy of treatment performed, presence of baseline radiolucency, and symptoms at baseline were recorded. Moreover, failure (presence of radiolucency 2 years after treatment) and tooth extraction data and causes of them were recorded. Outcomes were explored by using survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier estimates and survival table analysis) and regression analysis (Cox regression).

A total of 2,679 endodontically treated teeth were included in the analysis. After 20 years from the treatment, the cumulative survival rate for primary and secondary treatments was 84.10% (80.99%-87.21%) and 89.79% (86.68%-92.90%), respectively. No differences were found between primary and secondary treatments or with regard to the technique adopted. The presence of periapical radiolucency was correlated to higher odds of tooth extraction.

Despite the limitations of the study, we can assume that the proportion of retained endodontically treated teeth was significantly high over a long-term period.

This narrative review summarizes the current evidence about the role that the fabrication and presence of dental prostheses and tooth-related factors have on the initiation and progression of gingivitis and periodontitis.

Placement of restoration margins within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with gingival inflammation and, potentially, recession. The presence of fixed prostheses finish lines within the gingival sulcus or the wearing of partial, removable dental prostheses does not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. However, hypersensitivity reactions to the prosthesis dental material can be present. Procedures adopted for the fabrication of dental restorations and fixed prostheses have the potential to cause traumatic loss of periodontal supporting tissues. Tooth anatomic factors, root abnormalities, and fractures can act as plaque-retentive factors and increase the likelihood of gingivitis and periodontitis.

Tooth anatomic factors, such as root abnormalities and fractures, and tooth relationships in the dental arch and with the opposing dentition can enhance plaque retention. Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. Tooth-supported and/or tooth-retained restorations and their design, fabrication, delivery, and materials have often been associated with plaque retention and loss of attachment. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials. Restoration margins placed within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with inflammation and, potentially, recession. However, the evidence in several of the reviewed areas, especially related to the biologic mechanisms by which these factors affect the periodontium, is not conclusive. This highlights the need for additional well-controlled animal studies to elucidate biologic mechanisms, as well as longitudinal prospective human trials. Adequate periodontal assessment and treatment, appropriate instructions, and motivation in self-performed plaque control and compliance to maintenance protocols appear to be the most important factors to limit or avoid potential negative effects on the periodontium caused by fixed and removable prostheses.

This narrative review summarizes the current evidence about the role that the fabrication and presence of dental prostheses and tooth-related factors have on the initiation and progression of gingivitis and periodontitis.

Placement of restoration margins within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with gingival inflammation and, potentially, recession. The presence of fixed prostheses finish lines within the gingival sulcus or the wearing of partial, removable dental prostheses does not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. However, hypersensitivity reactions to the prosthesis dental material can be present. Procedures adopted for the fabrication of dental restorations and fixed prostheses have the potential to cause traumatic loss of periodontal supporting tissues. Tooth anatomic factors, root abnormalities, and fractures can act as plaque-retentive factors and increase the likelihood of gingivitis and periodontitis.

Tooth anatomic factors, such as root abnormalities and fractures, and tooth relationships in the dental arch and with the opposing dentition can enhance plaque retention. Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. Tooth-supported and/or tooth-retained restorations and their design, fabrication, delivery, and materials have often been associated with plaque retention and loss of attachment. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials. Restoration margins placed within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with inflammation and, potentially, recession. However, the evidence in several of the reviewed areas, especially related to the biologic mechanisms by which these factors affect the periodontium, is not conclusive. This highlights the need for additional well-controlled animal studies to elucidate biologic mechanisms, as well as longitudinal prospective human trials. Adequate periodontal assessment and treatment, appropriate instructions, and motivation in self-performed plaque control and compliance to maintenance protocols appear to be the most important factors to limit or avoid potential negative effects on the periodontium caused by fixed and removable prostheses.

A range of predictors for tooth loss in periodontitis patients have been reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the consistency and magnitude of any association between a total of 12 predictors and tooth loss.

Medline/Embase/Central were searched for longitudinal studies investigating the association between predictors and tooth loss in periodontitis patients. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and study quality assessed.

Twenty studies (15,422 patients, mean follow-up: 12 years) were included. The mean annual tooth loss/patient was 0.12 (min./max: 0.01/0.36). Older patients (n = 8 studies; OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.08/year), non-compliant ones (n = 11; 1.51, 1.06-2.16), diabetics (n = 7; 1.80, 1.26-2.57), those with IL-1-polymorphism (n = 3; 1.80; 1.29-2.52) and smokers (n = 15; 1.98, 1.58-2.48) had a significantly higher risk of tooth loss. Teeth with bone loss (n = 3; 1.04, 1.03-1.05/%), high probing pocket depth (n = 6; 3.19, 1.70-5.98), mobility (n = 4; 3.71, 1.65-8.38) and molars (n = 4; 4.22, 2.12-8.39), especially with furcation involvement (n = 5; 2.68, 1.75-4.08) also showed higher risks. Gender (n = 16; 0.95, 0.86-1.05) and endodontic affection (n = 3; 3.62, 0.99-13.2) were not significantly associated with tooth loss.

Older, non-compliant, smoking or diabetic patients, and teeth with bone loss, high probing pocket depth, mobility, or molars, especially with furcation involvement showed higher risks of tooth loss.

It is clear the contemporary dentist is confronted with a blizzard of information regarding materials and techniques from journal articles, advertisements, newsletters, the internet, and continuing education events. While some of that information is sound and helpful, much of it is misleading at best.

This review identifies and discusses the most important scientific findings regarding outcomes of dental treatment to assist the practitioner in making evidence-based choices. This review was conducted to assist the busy dentist in keeping abreast of the latest scientific information regarding the clinical practice of dentistry.

Each of the authors, who are considered experts in their disciplines, was asked to peruse the scientific literature published in 2015 in their discipline and review the articles for important information that may have an impact on treatment decisions. Comments on experimental methodology, statistical evaluation, and overall validity of the conclusions are included in many of the reviews.

The reviews are not meant to stand alone but are intended to inform the interested reader about what has been discovered in the past year. The readers are then invited to go to the source if they wish more detail.

Analysis of the scientific literature published in 2015 is divided into 7 sections, dental materials, periodontics, prosthodontics, occlusion and temporomandibular disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, cariology, and implant dentistry.