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: 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

Two-year evaluation of periodontal parameters following deep-margin-elevation and CAD/CAM partial lithium disilicate restorations - a prospective controlled clinical trial. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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.2025.105901DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

periodontal parameters
16
dme control
12
dme
10
lithium disilicate
8
clinical trial
8
proximal defects
8
patients restorations
8
proximal dme
8
dme associated
8
associated increased
8

Similar Publications