Radiological assessment of alveolar bone loss associated with overhanging restorations: A retrospective cone beam computed tomography study


TARÇIN B., GÜMRÜ TARÇIN B., İDMAN E.

Journal of Dental Sciences, cilt.18, sa.1, ss.165-174, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 18 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.06.021
  • Dergi Adı: Journal of Dental Sciences
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.165-174
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Alveolar bone loss, Cone beam computed tomography, Dental restoration, Overhanging, AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, DENTAL RESTORATIONS, PERIODONTAL-DISEASE, MARGINS, HEIGHT, PREVALENCE, DIAGNOSIS
  • Marmara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

© 2022 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of ChinaBackground/purpose: Studies suggested that presence and size of overhanging restoration margins play role in alveolar bone loss. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and distribution of overhanging approximal restorations, to evaluate the effect of presence and size of overhang on bone loss using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reformatted panoramic images, and to encourage the use of CBCT in retrospective studies on restorative dentistry. Materials and methods: CBCT images of 382 patients with approximal restorations were included in the study. On CBCT images, alveolar bone loss adjacent to each restored surface was determined and compared to the control tooth. The overhang size was measured and categorized as small, medium, or large. Data obtained were evaluated statistically using Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney U, chi-square, and one-sample chi-square tests with a significance level set at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 216 (32.4%) surfaces with overhanging restorations were detected in CBCT images. The number of overhanging surfaces with alveolar bone loss (71.3%) was higher than the control surfaces with bone loss (49.1%) (P < 0.05). The amount of bone loss adjacent to overhanging surfaces (2.28 ± 1.69 mm) was significantly higher compared to control surfaces (1.53 ± 1.73 mm) (P < 0.05). However, the same trend applied to the surfaces without overhang and their controls. The amount of bone loss was not correlated with the overhang size (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Approximal restorations with and without overhanging margins may often result in alveolar bone loss, the amount of which is not always correlated with the overhang size.