case Flashcards
Marginal Ridge Discrepancies
a. Kepic/O’Leary – no correlation between marginal ridges and poorer perio parameters b. Pihlstrom - (looked at Mx first molars and found that un-even marginal ridges had more CAL (~0.5mm) and deeper PD than teeth w/ even marginal ridges
Male gender
Shiau 2010, systematic review and MA. Males have higher prevalence of periodontitis compared to females but not necessarily at greater risk for more rapid periodontal destruction. Sexual dimorphisms exist in immune function, involving both innate and acquired immunity. Men have higher levels of inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin‐1β and tumor necrosis factor‐α, than women, paralleling observed sex‐specific differences in periodontitis. Conclusion: Differential gene regulation, particularly in sex steroid–responsive genes, may contribute to a sexual dimorphism in susceptibility to destructive periodontal disease.
Interproximal plaque removal
KEIGER: RCT. proxabrush is more effective at removing interproximal plaque than floss in open interproximal spaces Kotsakis: Interdental brushes & waterjets are the best interproximal OH aid to decrease BOP. Flossing does not substantially decrease inflammation. However, no control over periodontal status (healthy vs reduced perio vs gingivitis)
How do you know that NST decreases inflammation?•
Caton: lack of sulcular epithelium ulceration, Less inflammatory infiltrate, More dense CT, Less perivascular edema at 4 weeks Caton developed interdental bleeding index - insert wooden pick interdentally, depressing papilla 1 -2 mm, repeated 4x, presence or absence of bleeding within 15 seconds Good index of epidemiological studies as it has high inter-examiner reliability
give evidence that it’s okay to retain hopeless teeth
Machtei - With (OFD), minimal detrimental effects; MT is key Wojcik – Treated and retained hopeless teeth can have no detrimental effect on alveolar bone levels on adjacent teeth at 8 years; MT is key
give evidence that you should EXT hopeless teeth
Machtei - Without perio tx, retained hopeless teeth caused 10x greater AL if you don’t treat them Grassi 1987 - Split mouth study involving SCRP and ext of hopeless tooth or retention og hopeless tooth. Found that Following extraction of hopeless teeth, the periodontal status of the adjacent teeth was more greatly improved that the contralateral side. In deep pockets (4-9mm), there was a 1.46mm PD decrease and 0.67mm CAL gain
what do you expect after SCRP
HUNG AND DOUGLASS META-ANAYLSIS: 4-6 mm =PD reduction of 1 mm, 0.5 mm CAL gain. 7+ mm = PD reduction of 2 mm, 1 mm CAL gain for deep initial periodontal probing depths
give me evidence that is it worthwhile to do reinstrumentation
Magnusson: patients whose hygiene did not drastically improve after first round of SRP showed significant benefits from additional round of SRP 16 weeks after initial instrumentation -Torfason: patients who were re-instrumented 4 weeks after initial therapy showed improved clinical gains compared to control (only instrumented at one visit) Rationale: patients with poor OH that can’t support surgery, initial instrumentation performed below office standard, inadequate response at all sites
why should you not re-instrument?
-Anderson 1996: Single episode of SCRP versus 3 rounds of SCRP. Second and third rounds of scaling were 24 hrs later. Residual calculus not removed after one episode of SCRP is not likely to be removed by repeated instrumentations. HOWEVER - THEY DID NOT ALLOW FOR SOFT TISSUE HEALING/SHRINKAGE WHICH MAY IMPROVE. Repeated episodes of SCRP does not eliminate the need for more invasive procedures (surgery). Badersten 1981: In single rooted teeth, a single initial episode of ultrasonic scaling is as effective as three episodes accomplished three months apart in the treatment.
How do you know that you are going to be better at local factor removal with surgery?
Caffese SCRP in molars- Brayer looked at single rooted teeth and found similar result) how many surfaces were calculus free? • 1-3mm: 86% open vs. 86% closed • 4-6mm: 76% open vs. 43% closed • 7+mm: 50% open vs 32% closed
how do you know that an open contact is a local factor
Hancock – young male Naval recruits (17-19 yo) without much disease. Significant relationship between open contact and food impaction and food impaction causes increased PD, attachment loss, and BOP Assessed open contact with double strand of unwaxed floss Jernberg – older patient population (mean 43 yo) a) Open contacts/food impaction associated with increased PD (0.27 mm) and AL (0.48 mm) 1. Open contact = floss slipping through during mastication 2. Looked at open contact with contralateral closed contact 3. Food impactions associated with occlusal interferences
tell me about bone sounding
a. Ursell: bone sounding vs surgical measurements correlation coefficient 97% with mean 0.29 mm difference b. Mealey: Bone sounding in furcations is accurate within 1 mm 85% of the time. Average difference between bone sounding and surgical measurements was 0.5mm. Bone sounding increase diagnostic accuracy 10% clinical detection of furcation invasion.
buchanan
d. Buchanan: Radiographic Calculus – Sens 43%; Spec 92% a) PPV 92%; NPV 46% Reported in text, Page 3 1. Sensitivity: w disease, how often test confirm presence 2. Specificity: w/o disease, how often test deny presence 3. PPV: test +, how often dx present 4. NPV: test -, how often dx non-present Hyer - a step of calculus greater than 0.5 mm more likely to be seen on radiograph. Greater than 30% of the root surface covered in calculus - more likely to be seen on radiograph. Altering the radiographs did not aid in its detection
calculus types
a) Four major crystalline forms 1. Hydroxyapatite (~ 58%) – major crystalline form in mature calculus 2. Magnesium whitlockite (~ 21%) 3. Octacalcium phosphate (~12%) 4. Brushite (~ 9%) – first crystalline form immature calculus
tooth proximity
Heins and Weider: Distance between roots and histology of bone a) 0-0.3 mm = no bone, direct PDL attachment between teeth b) 0.3-0.5 mm = Cortical bone only, no cancellous c) >0.5 mm = cortical and cancellous bone Hain Tal: distance between roots & defect type. *Correlates well w/ Sphere of Influence a) <2.5 mm = mostly horizontal bone loss b) 2.5 – 3.1 mm = possible to have single intra-bony defect c) > 3.1 mm = possible to have 2 intra-bony defects Waerhaug sphere of influence ranges from 0.5-2.7. mean 1.63mm Kim: Mand anterior teeth with <0.8mm inter-root distance 56% (RR = 1.56) more likely to lose ≥1mm bone over 10 years; evaluated on PAs and adjusted for confounders, like age and smoking
furcation classifications
i. Grade I incipient; pocket formation into flute; bone intact ii. Grade II moderate; pocket formation with loss of bone of varying depths; but not completely through iii. Grade III through and through; probable to opposite side with pocket formation iv. Grade IV exposed; furca is clearly visible due to loss of attachment and gingival recession • Hamp i. Degree I horizontal loss < 3mm ii. Degree II horizontal loss > 3mm but not all the way through iii. Degree III horizontal loss through and through • Tarnow and Fletcher (vertical component measured from ROOF of furca) i. Subclass A vertical loss 1-3mm ii. Subclass B vertical loss 4-6mm iii. Subclass C vertical loss > 7mm
maxillary 1st PM info why are furcations on this tooth significant?
Gher & Verino: 78% of maxillary first premolars have a concavity on the palatal (furcal) surface of the buccal root Mesial deVELOPMENTAL GROOVE exjsts on single rooted max 1st PM - worsening prognosis Joseph - study done on 100 extracted maxillary 1st PMs: 37% of maxillary first premolars are bifurcated. 1/3 in cervical, 1/3 in middle, 1/3 in apical Mean root trunk length (CEJ to furcation) = 7.9mm 100% prevalence of mesial and distal root concavities, mesial is deeper -Root concavities retain plaque, complicate patient home care and worsen tooth prognosis if exposed; professional maintenance of these areas is crucial.
What evidence exist that lack of dental care can contribute to periodontal disease?
a. Loe and Anerud – Norwegians and Sri Lankans a) SL had 3x rate of interproximal LOA/yr b. Becker – patients who were not treated and not maintained had more tooth loss compared to patients who were treated and maintained and even patients who were treated (but not maintained) – treatment was ScRP and osseous surgery Treated and maintained – lost 0.11 teeth/yr Treated but not maintained – lost 0.22 teeth/yr Not treated and not maintained – lost 0.36 teeth/yr Axelsson and Lindhe –study where 180 patients received only symptomatic treatment and 375 received regular maintenance care – showed that preventative programs could resolve gingivitis and prevent periodontitis and tooth loss whereas patients without care deteriorated.
Recession classification
Miller a) Class 1: recession does not extend to mucogingival junction (MGJ), no interdental bone loss b) Class 2: Recession extends to or beyond MGJ but no interproximal bone loss c) Class 3: Recession extends to or beyond MGJ and some interproximal attachment loss or teeth malpositioning d) Class 4: recession extends to or beyond MGJ and severe bone/soft tissue loss in interdental area and/or severe tooth malpositioning. Cairo RT1: no interproximal loss, interproximal CEJs not clinically detectable RT2: interproximal loss, buccal attachment is apical or EQUAL ro interproximal attachment RT3: interproximal loss, buccal attachment is coronal to interproximal
Furcation entrance size
BOWER: furcation width of 200 ext mandibular and maxillary molars. 81% were less than 1mm. More than half were less than 0.75. Most could not fit the blade of a curette.
how deep can you clean
Stambaugh (7 posterior teeth included with 30 minutes spent cleaning each tooth) a) Average curette efficiency depth = 3.73 mm for plaque free b) Average curette limit = 5.52 mm where scratches evident c) Mesial sites cleaned the worst, DL sites were best
waerhaug #s
PD Non-surgical (plaque free surfaces) 0-3 89% 3-5 63% >5mm 11%
critical PD
Lindhe 2.9mm for NST (lose AL below it and gain AL if PD above this) b. 4.2mm for Surgical therapy c. 5.4mm where you will gain more attachment with surgical rather than NST
Give evidence of alcohol as a risk factor for periodontitis
Moderate alcohol drinking: 1-2 drinks/day for men (1/day for women) Heavy alcohol drinking: men >4 drinks/day; women >3 drinks/day Tezal: Used NHANES data Association between alcohol abuse and & CAL 5 drinks/week = O.R =1.2 for CAL 10 drinks/week = O.R. = 1.4 for CAL Alcohol consumption may be associated with increased severity of CAL in a dose-dependent fashion. Wang SR, MA Risk of periodontitis increased by 0.4% for each 1 g/day increment in alcohol consumption.