ABSTRACT
Dental veneers are widely used to restore or/and enhance dental aesthetics. However, it is not well understood how various veneer preparation and cementation methods affect periodontal health. To provide a quantitative estimate of the overall effect size of the intervention, this study was conducted to synthesize the available evidence on the impact of various dental veneer preparation and cementation methods on periodontal status. A thorough search strategy was implemented using Medical Subject Headings keywords and Boolean operators across various major databases, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Nine papers were ultimately selected for inclusion in the review. Seven studies demonstrated a positive impact of dental veneers on overall periodontal health, while two studies reported a slight worsening. The forest plot analyses showed a somewhat protective effect of dental veneers on periodontal health, with odds ratio of 0.18 and relative risk of 0.34, suggesting that dental veneers may have a positive impact on overall periodontal health. The current study, with considerable heterogeneity among the studies, indicates that dental veneers are associated with an overall positive effect on the periodontal health. However, given the variations in study designs, sample sizes, and follow-up times, additional research may be required to confirm and generalize these results.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To clinically quantify the apicoincisal height of interproximal areas directly in patients' mouths. METHODOLOGY: Thirty participants (11 females and 9 males, mean age=26±1.5 years) were recruited into this study. Measurement of interproximal contact areas was carried out directly in patients' mouths using digital caliper (TERENSA, USA) with measuring accuracy of 0.01 mm. The interproximal contact areas that were measured are: central incisor to central incisor, central incisor to lateral incisor, lateral incisor to canine, and canine to first premolar on both sides of the jaw. Statistical significance was based on probability values less than 0.05 (p<0.05). RESULTS: The largest contact point was the one present between central incisors and it ranged from 2.9 to 6.5 mm. On the other hand, the contact point between canine and first premolar was the smallest on both sides of the arch and ranged from 0.6 to 2.5 mm. The dimensions of the contact points declined as we move from anterior area backwards. Statistical analysis using t-test showed that there were significant differences between the measurements of interproximal points of each tooth (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: the apicogingival dimension of the contact point decreased as we moved from anterior to posterior teeth. The contact area between the central incisors was largest and the one between canine and premolar was the smallest. This study is the first to report direct intra-oral clinical measurement of contact points. Clinical evaluation of contact point dimensions using digital caliber is a viable, quick and accurate method to use.
