17. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of fixed dental prostheses on patients at dental clinic, Dong Da Hospiatal in 2023
Main Article Content
Abstract
The study was conducted on 59 fixed dental prostheses of 22 patients at Dong Da Hospital in 2023 to evaluate the proximal contact tightness of these fixed prostheses. The results show that 62.7% of fixed dental protheses clinically achieved ideal marginal fit except 37.3%. After assessing 110 proximal contact surfaces, we found 45.5% in normal proximal contact, 30.9% in open proximal contact and 25.5% in tight proximal contact. Moreover, 81.8% of more than five-year-old prostheses did not maintain ideal proximal contact.
Article Details
Keywords
Proximal contact tightness, fixed dental protheses
References
1. Gomes Filho VV, Gondinho BVC, Silva-Junior MF, et al. Tooth loss in adults: factors associated with the position and number of lost teeth. Rev Saude Publica. 2019; 53: 105. doi:10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053001318.
2. Nguyễn Văn Bài. Phục hình răng cố định. Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục Việt Nam. 2023.
3. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62(4): 405-408. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4.
4. Badar SB, Zafar K, Ghafoor R, Khan FR. Radiographic evaluation of the margins of clinically acceptable metal-ceramic crowns. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022; 72(Suppl 1)(2): S35-S39. doi:10.47391/JPMA.AKU-08.
5. Foulger TE, Tredwin CJ, Gill DS, Moles DR. The influence of varying maxillary incisal edge embrasure space and interproximal contact area dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J. 2010; 209(3): E4. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.719.
6. Oh SH, Nakano M, Bando E, Shigemoto S, Kori M. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31(6): 538-545. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01181.x.
7. Valderhaug J, Ellingsen JE, Jokstad A. Oral hygiene, periodontal conditions and carious lesions in patients treated with dental bridges. A 15-year clinical and radiographic follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol. 1993; 20(7): 482-489. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1993.tb00395.x.
8. Gohil KS, Talim ST, Singh I. Proximal contacts in posterior teeth and factors influencing interproximal caries. J Prosthet Dent. 1973; 30(3): 295-302. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(73)90186-8.
9. Odman P, Andersson B. Procera AllCeram crowns followed for 5 to 10.5 years: a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14(6): 504-509.
10. Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, Hammerle CHF. Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22(6): 553-560.
11. Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21(4): 307-311.
12. Kim HS, Na HJ, Kim HJ, Kang DW, Oh SH. Evaluation of proximal contact strength by postural changes. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009; 1(3): 118-123. doi:10.4047/jap.2009.1.3.118.
13. Almalki AD, Al-Rafee MA. Evaluation of presence of proximal contacts on recently inserted posterior crowns in different health sectors in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(11): 3549-3553. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_735_19.
2. Nguyễn Văn Bài. Phục hình răng cố định. Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục Việt Nam. 2023.
3. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62(4): 405-408. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4.
4. Badar SB, Zafar K, Ghafoor R, Khan FR. Radiographic evaluation of the margins of clinically acceptable metal-ceramic crowns. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022; 72(Suppl 1)(2): S35-S39. doi:10.47391/JPMA.AKU-08.
5. Foulger TE, Tredwin CJ, Gill DS, Moles DR. The influence of varying maxillary incisal edge embrasure space and interproximal contact area dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J. 2010; 209(3): E4. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.719.
6. Oh SH, Nakano M, Bando E, Shigemoto S, Kori M. Evaluation of proximal tooth contact tightness at rest and during clenching. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31(6): 538-545. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01181.x.
7. Valderhaug J, Ellingsen JE, Jokstad A. Oral hygiene, periodontal conditions and carious lesions in patients treated with dental bridges. A 15-year clinical and radiographic follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol. 1993; 20(7): 482-489. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1993.tb00395.x.
8. Gohil KS, Talim ST, Singh I. Proximal contacts in posterior teeth and factors influencing interproximal caries. J Prosthet Dent. 1973; 30(3): 295-302. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(73)90186-8.
9. Odman P, Andersson B. Procera AllCeram crowns followed for 5 to 10.5 years: a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14(6): 504-509.
10. Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, Hammerle CHF. Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22(6): 553-560.
11. Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Twenty-year follow-up of metal-ceramic single crowns: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21(4): 307-311.
12. Kim HS, Na HJ, Kim HJ, Kang DW, Oh SH. Evaluation of proximal contact strength by postural changes. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009; 1(3): 118-123. doi:10.4047/jap.2009.1.3.118.
13. Almalki AD, Al-Rafee MA. Evaluation of presence of proximal contacts on recently inserted posterior crowns in different health sectors in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(11): 3549-3553. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_735_19.