Periodontal Evaluation of Patients with Ceramic Fused-to-Metal and Acrylate Fused-to-Metal Crowns over a Period of 1 to 5 Years

Abstract

Svrha: U ovom radu željeli smo ispitati postoji li razlika između eksperimentalnih (nosača krunica) i kontrolnih (homolognih) zuba u skupini pacijenata s metal–akrilatnim krunicama i onoj s metal–keramičkima, te ima li razlika između tih dviju vrsta krunica kad je riječ o indeksu plaka, gingivalnom i retencijskom indeksu, CPITN-u, retrakciji marginalne gingive i resorpciji kosti. Željeli smo doznati i utječe li duljina nošenja metal–akrilatnih i metal–keramičkih krunica na navedene indekse. Ispitanici i postupci: U istraživanje je bilo uključeno 80 pacijenata obaju spolova u dobi od 20 do 65 godina s fiksnim protetskim radovima (solo krunicama). Svi potrebni parametri dobiveni su kliničkim pregledom i analizom retroalveolarnih snimki. Rezultati: Dokazana je statistički znatna razlika između eksperimentalnih i kontrolnih zuba u skupini pacijenata s metal-akrilatnim krunicama za gingivalni indeks, CPITN, retencijski indeks i retrakciju marginalne gingive, a za ostale praćene indekse nije pronađena. Osim toga rezultati su pokazali da je statistički velika razlika i između eksperimentalnih te kontrolnih zuba u skupini pacijenata s metal-keramičkim krunicama za indeks plaka, gingivalni i retencijki indeks, CPITN i retrakciju marginalne gingive, a nema razlike kod resorpcije kosti. Ustanovljeno je da između metal-akrilatnih i metal-keramičkih krunica postoji statistički znatna razlika samo kao je riječ o indeksu plaka. Zaključak: Duljina nošenja fiksnoga protetskog rada (do pet godina) u skupini pacijenata s metal-akrilatnim krunicama utječe na indeks plaka, dubinu periodontalnog sulkusa i retrakciju marginalne gingive, a kod onih s metal-keramičkim krunicama ne djeluje na praćene indekse.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