A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT-Based Study. | LitMetric

Objectives: The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the mesial and distal proximal enamel thickness available (PETa), (2) estimate the proximal enamel thickness remaining (PETr) on the basis of planned IPR, and (3) assess PETr-associated risks with varying IPR amounts.

Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using CBCT scans. PETa was estimated using on-demand software. Mesial and distal PET were measured at the middle third of the crown. The means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the PETa and PETr data are reported. Differences between the mesial and distal PETa values were compared.

Results: A total of 1615 teeth were analyzed via CBCT. The mean PETa values ranged from 0.96 to 1.29 mm (mesial) and from 0.98 to 1.25 mm (distal). Differences between mesial and distal PETa were statistically significant, averaging 0.10 mm proximally (p < 0.050). In particular, these differences were observed in cuspids, including tooth 13 (1.18 ± 0.24 vs. 1.25 ± 0.28; p = 0.021), tooth 23 (1.25 ± 0.26 vs. 1.15 ± 0.28; p < 0.001), tooth 33 (1.22 ± 0.26 vs. 1.10 ± 0.23; p < 0.001), and tooth 43 (1.29 ± 0.24 vs. 1.13 ± 0.20; p < 0.001). The mean PETr values for single-site IPRs < 0.4 mm were 0.58 mm (mesial) and 0.57 mm (distal). Exceeding a single-site IPR of 0.20 mm significantly increased the proportion of interproximal sites classified as moderate or high risk, particularly in teeth with thinner enamel (< 0.7 mm).

Conclusions: PETa and PETr are critical for determining safe and individualized IPR. CBCT-based PETa evaluations are strongly recommended when single-site IPRs exceeding 0.20 mm are planned to increase precision and reduce the risk of excessive enamel reduction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11832591PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70083DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mesial distal
16
enamel thickness
12
proximal enamel
8
differences mesial
8
distal peta
8
peta values
8
peta
6
mesial
5
distal
5
assessing enamel
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!