| Literature DB >> 24393572 |
Giampietro Farronato1, Lucia Giannini, Guido Galbiati, Cinzia Maspero.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although dental dilaceration disinclusion is an accepted treatment modality, few studies have evaluated the prognosis for dilacerated maxillary incisors and changes in clinical periodontal parameters still need to be demonstrated. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the prognosis and changes in clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and soft tissue recession (REC) for disincluded dilacerated maxillary incisors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24393572 PMCID: PMC3903036 DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-15-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Orthod ISSN: 1723-7785 Impact factor: 2.750
Clinical and radiographic data in the four sites
| Clinical assessment | Mesial | Buccal | Distal | Palatal | Overall | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
|
| ||||||||||
| T0 | 1.93 |
| 1.37 | 0.71 | 1.83 | 0.69 | 1.62 | 0.67 | 1.6875 | 0.247975 |
| T1 | 1.92 |
| 1.36 | 0.69 | 1.82 | 0.67 | 1.59 | 0.61 | 1.6725 | 0.249983 |
| T2 | 1.92 |
| 1.35 | 0.68 | 1.82 | 0.57 | 1.58 | 0.63 | 1.6675 | 0.255261 |
|
| ||||||||||
| T0 | 2.18 |
| 1.57 | 0.63 | 2.1 | 0.69 | 1.98 | 0.8 | 1.9575 | 0.271093 |
| T1 | 2.19 |
| 1.59 | 0.62 | 2.12 | 0.67 | 1.99 | 0.89 | 1.9725 | 0.268126 |
| T2 | 2.21 |
| 1.6 | 0.6 | 2.13 | 0.68 | 1.99 | 0.87 | 1.9825 | 0.270724 |
|
| ||||||||||
| T0 | 0.25 |
| 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.27 | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 0.066833 |
| T1 | 0.27 |
| 0.23 | 0.41 | 0.3 | 0.57 | 0.4 | 0.63 | 0.3 | 0.072572 |
| T2 | 0.29 |
| 0.25 | 0.4 | 0.31 | 0.57 | 0.41 | 0.62 | 0.315 | 0.068069 |
Patients treated with closed eruption technique. PD, probing depth; CAL, clinical attachment level; REC, soft tissue recession.
Clinical and radiographic data in the four sites
| Clinical assessment | Mesial | Buccal | Distal | Palatal | Overall | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| T0 | 1.91 | 0.61 | 1.35 | 0.72 | 1.85 | 0.68 | 1.63 | 0.67 | 1.685 | 0.253706 |
| T1 | 1.93 | 0.63 | 1.36 | 0.69 | 1.84 | 0.67 | 1.6 | 0.62 | 1.6825 | 0.256174 |
| T2 | 1.92 | 0.69 | 1.35 | 0.68 | 1.83 | 0.62 | 1.59 | 0.64 | 1.6725 | 0.256174 |
|
| ||||||||||
| T0 | 2.19 | 0.72 | 1.57 | 0.64 | 2.09 | 0.7 | 1.97 | 0.82 | 1.955 | 0.271968 |
| T1 | 2.19 | 0.73 | 1.6 | 0.62 | 2.11 | 0.67 | 1.99 | 0.89 | 1.9725 | 0.261582 |
| T2 | 2.2 | 0.73 | 1.6 | 0.61 | 2.13 | 0.69 | 1.99 | 0.88 | 1.98 | 0.267955 |
|
| ||||||||||
| T0 | 0.27 | 0.59 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 0.61 | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.2675 | 0.060208 |
| T1 | 0.27 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 0.2875 | 0.05909 |
| T2 | 0.29 | 0.59 | 0.26 | 0.43 | 0.3 | 0.59 | 0.4 | 0.64 | 0.3125 | 0.060759 |
Patients treated with apically positioned flap technique.
Clinical and radiographic data overall and changes from T1 to T2
| Clinical assessment | Mean | SD | T1 to T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| T0 | 1.6875 | 0.247975 | |
| T1 | 1.6725 | 0.249983 | |
| T2 | 1.6675 | 0.255261 | −0.005 |
|
| |||
| T0 | 1.9575 | 0.271093 | |
| T1 | 1.9725 | 0.268126 | |
| T2 | 1.9825 | 0.270724 | 0.01 |
|
| |||
| T0 | 0.27 | 0.066833 | |
| T1 | 0.3 | 0.072572 | |
| T2 | 0.315 | 0.068069 | 0.015 |
Patients treated with closed eruption technique. Statistically significant differences are presented in italics.
Clinical and radiographic data overall and changes from T1 to T2
| Clinical assessment | Mean | SD | T1 to T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| T0 | 1.685 | 0.253706 | |
| T1 | 1.6825 | 0.256174 | |
| T2 | 1.6725 | 0.256174 | −0.01 |
|
| |||
| T0 | 1.955 | 0.271968 | |
| T1 | 1.9725 | 0.261582 | |
| T2 | 1.98 | 0.267955 | 0.0075 |
|
| |||
| T0 | 0.2675 | 0.060208 | |
| T1 | 0.2875 | 0.05909 | |
| T2 | 0.3125 | 0.060759 | 0.025 |
Patients treated with apically positioned flap technique. Statistically significant differences are presented in italics.