List of Articles by MeSH

COMPOSITE RESIN + analysis

NOTES:

*Articles are cited according to Uniform Requirements by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors - ICMJE and NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors and Publishers

Dautović Kazazić L, Redžepagić S, Ajanović M, Gavranović A, Strujić S. Periodontal evaluation of patients with ceramic fused-to-metal and acrylate fused-to-metal crowns over a period of 1 to 5 years. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2010;44(1):34-46.

[details]

Full Text

Title in English:	Periodontal evaluation of patients with ceramic fused-to-metal and acrylate fused-to-metal crowns over a period of 1 to 5 years
Title in Croatian:	Evaluacija parodontalnog stanja kod pacijenata nositelja metal-keramičkih i metal-akrilatnih krunica u razdoblju od jedne do pet godina
Type of Article:	original scientific paper
MeSH:	ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS + etiology COMPOSITE RESIN + analysis DENTAL PLAQUE INDEX METAL CERAMIC ALLOYS + analysis TOOTH CROWN + anatomy & histology
Abstract:	Purpose:The purpose of this study was to examine if there is any difference between observed teeth (abutment teeth) and control teeth (homologous) in patients with acrylate fused-to-metal (AFM) crowns and those with ceramic fused-to-metal (CFM) crowns, and if there is any difference between AFM and CFM crowns in terms of plaque index, gingival index, retention index, CPITN, marginal gingiva retraction and bone resorption. The next objective was to examine if the length of use of AFM and CFM crowns bears any impact on these indices. Material and methods: The study included 80 patients of both sexes aged 20 to 65 with fixed prosthetics (single crowns). All the research parameters were obtained from clinical examinations and radiographic analyses. Results showed that in the group of patients with AFM crowns there was a statistically significant difference between observed and control teeth in terms of gingival index, CPITN, retention index and marginal gingiva retraction, whereas there was no statistically significant difference for other indices observed. Results also showed that in patients with CFM crowns there was a statistically significant difference between observed and control teeth in terms of plaque index, gingival index, CPITN, retention index and marginal gingiva retraction, whereas there was no statistically significant difference for bone resorption. A statistically significant difference was found between AFM and CFM only in terms of plaque index. Conclusion: The length of use of the prosthetic appliance (under five years) in the group with AFM crowns did influence the plaque index, the depth of periodontal sulcus and the marginal gingiva retraction. The length of use of fixed prosthetic appliances (under five years) in the group with CFM crowns did not influence the indices observed.