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: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objectives: This prospective clinical trial evaluated periodontal parameters at proximal deep-margin-elevation (DME) restoration margins 2 years after placement and compared them with baseline values and with supragingival/equigingival margins (control) on the opposite proximal surface of the same tooth.
Methods: One-sided subgingival proximal defects in (pre-)molars were restored using composite DME and CAD/CAM-manufactured lithium disilicate partial restorations. Periodontal parameters (bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depths (PD), plaque index (PI)) were recorded after ceramic insertion (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up, and compared between DME and control (Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.05).
Results: Sixty-eight patients with 77 restorations were included; 51 patients with 57 restorations were re-evaluated at 2 years. Two restorations were replaced (ceramic fracture, secondary caries), and one tooth developed apical periodontitis. Periodontal parameters were not significantly different at baseline. After 2 years, BOP increased significantly at the DME (p = 0.010), but not at controls (p = 0.517); but BOP was not significantly different between DME and control (p = 0.110). PD was significantly higher in DME vs. control (p = 0.015), but remained stable in both groups over the 2-year period (DME: p = 0.171, control: p = 0.517). PI increased significantly in both groups (p < 0.001), but did not differ between both sides (p = 0.341).
Conclusion: Proximal DME was associated with increased gingival inflammation at 2-year recall compared to baseline.
Clinical Significance: DME is a promising approach for restoring teeth with deep proximal defects, but proximal DME is associated with increased gingival inflammation. The periodontal situation remains stable after the first year of placement.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105901 | DOI Listing |