Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Periodontal response to a tricalcium silicate material or resin composite placed in close contact to the supracrestal tissue attachment: a histomorphometric comparative study. | LitMetric
Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Rúa entrerríos, 15702, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Published: October 2021
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Objective: Subgingival dental restorations and periodontal health have been studied for many years; however, there is a low histological evidence on the behavior of new materials in the supracrestal tissue attachment. The aim of this study is to analyze the periodontal response when a tricalcium silicate material (TSM) or composite margin restorations is placed to 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm from the bone crest with a histomorphometric analysis in dogs.
Methods: Nine mongrel dogs were used in this study: four dogs (8 canine teeth) for TSM group, 4 dogs (8 canine teeth) for composite group, and 1 dog (2 canine teeth) with cavities without restorations. Cavity preparation of 2×2×1 mm was created on the buccal aspect of the canines at 0.5 and 1.5 mm of the crestal bone. Cavities were restored with composite and TSM or were left unrestored as control. After 12 weeks of healing, the dogs were euthanized and blocks containing the tooth and soft tissues were processed.
Results: In all the specimens, the junction epithelium was stablished apical to the tooth preparations. A shorter distance to the bone (0.5 cavity) implies greater apical periodontal migration regardless of the material used. In the TSM groups, the connective tissue height and the distance between bone level and apical margin preparation were greater than those in the composite groups, while the epithelium height was less. However, there were no statistically significant differences comparing TSM and composite groups at either 0.5 mm or 1.5 mm (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Histologic analysis did not show periodontal reattachment to TSM or composite. In both cases, bone crest migrates apically. For that reason, it is recommended to perform composite restorations at the subgingival level whenever the distance to the bone crest is at least 2 mm.
Clinical Relevance: Both composite and TSM do not achieve reinsertion of the connective tissue in the biological width.
