ABSTRACT
Objetivo: avaliar o padrão da disposição da margem gengival (simétrica ou assimétrica) na zona estética. Material e métodos: foram avaliados 55 adultos jovens brasileiros, de ambos os sexos, estudantes do curso de graduação em Odontologia da Faculdade de Nova Friburgo, na faixa etária entre 18 e 25 anos. Foram avaliados incisivos centrais superiores direito e esquerdo, por um único examinador especialista em Periodontia, considerando os seguintes parâmetros clínicos: índice de placa, sangramento a sondagem e profundidade clínica de sondagem, coletados nos sítios distal, vestibular e mesial de cada elemento dentário estudado. Foram realizadas, ainda, análises morfométricas quanto à disposição das margens gengivais (simetria ou assimetria) entre incisivos centrais (direito e esquerdo), através de avaliação visual em fotos, utilizando modelos zocalados para uma segunda avaliação, objetivando fidelizar a avaliação antes realizada nas fotos. Resultados: o incisivo central direito foi responsável por 64% das relações assimétricas observadas. A assimetria das margens gengivais, entre incisivos centrais, foi observada em 25,45%, não havendo diferença estatisticamente significante em relação ao sexo. Conclusão: o reconhecimento dos aspectos gengivais (simetria gengival) e sua relação com elementos dentais tornam-se indispensáveis, visto que no processo de restauração é fundamental o entendimento do normal, possibilitando prever as dificuldades encontradas no processo de reconstrução de estruturas alteradas.
Objective: to evaluate the gingival margin disposition (symmetry of the lack of) in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: 55 Brazilian dental students (18-25 years-old) from both genders were evaluated at the Nova Friburgo Dental School. The maxillary right and left central incisors were examiner by an single specialist in Periodontics, considering the following parameters: plaque index, bleeding on probing, pocket probing depth, collected at the distal, buccal, and mesial sites of each element. Also, morphometric analyses were performed regarding the gingival margin disposition through photographic records and standardized stone casts to confirm the data obtained. Results: the maxillary right central incisor was responsible for 64% of asymmetries. The asymmetry between the central incisors was observed in 25.45% being not statistically different between genders. Conclusion: the identification of gingival aspects (gingival symmetry) and its relationship with the dental elements are invaluable to standardize what can be considered as a reference to normal standards, while it still predicts the drawbacks found in the reconstructive process of altered tissues.
Subject(s)
Humans , Esthetics, Dental , Facial Asymmetry , Gingiva/anatomy & histology , PeriodontiumABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was designed 1) to compare the perception of dental professionals and lay people with respect to minor variations in maxillary anterior tooth size and alignment and their relation to the surrounding soft tissues, and 2) to evaluate the normal tooth-gingiva topographical relationships in periodontally healthy young subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary anterior teeth were intentionally diagrammed in varying degree of deviation with respect to one of three common anterior esthetic discrepancies including variations in crown length, shape of gingival margin, and length of interproximal contact. 17 images were generated to be preferentially selected by 2 groups consisting of dental professionals and lay people (total of 740). Smiling photographs of 120 dental students who had healthy periodontium were taken and the photographic images were analyzed to be classified as 17 kinds of altered image groups. RESULTS: The results demonstrated noticeable difference between the varying levels of discrepancy. Both group preferred gingival margin of lateral incisor to be 0.5mm lower than that of central incisor. Lay people preferred the gingival margin shape that has 2/9 horizontal component of the crown width, while dental professionals preferred the gingival margin shape that has 1/9 horizontal component of the crown width. Lay people preferred longer length of the interproximal contact (two thirds of the crown length), whereas dental professionals preferred shorter length of the interproximal contact (half of the crown length). Photographic analysis of normal esthetic gingival topography revealed 2/9 horizontal component and short length of the interproximal contact which was of the hybrid nature of the preferences shared by lay people and dental professionals. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that dental professionals and lay people demonstrated significant difference in their preference of dental esthetic components, which may then influence the decision making process by dental professionals with respect to designing the anterior esthetic gingival line.