Mohd G Sghaireen1, Bader K Al-Zarea2, Hisham M Al-Shorman3, Mahmoud K Al-Omiri4. 1. BDS, MSc, Jor Board; Assistant Professor and Consultant, and Head of Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia. mohdgla@yahoo.com. 2. BDS, MSc, Jor Board; Assistant Professor and Consultant, and Vice Dean, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia. bkalzarea@ju.edu.sa. 3. BDS, PhD, Jor Board; Assistant Professor; and Coordinator, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Teeba University, Al-Madina Al-Monawarah, Saudi Arabia. hshorman@taibahu.edu.sa. 4. BDS, PhD, FDS RCS (England), Jor Board, DCE (Ireland); Professor and Senior Consultant, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; and Head of Academic Advising Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia. alomirim@yahoo.co.uk.
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.
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.
Authors: Christian F J Stappert; Dennis P Tarnow; Jocelyn H-P Tan; Stephen J Chu Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Mohd G Sghaireen; Heyam Mobark Albhiran; Ibrahim A Alzoubi; Edward Lynch; Mahmoud K Al-Omiri Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 1.927