| Literature DB >> 33655796 |
C Wiedemann1, C Pink1, A Daboul2, S Samietz2, H Völzke3,4, E Schulz-Kornas5,6, K F Krey7, B Holtfreter1, T Kocher1.
Abstract
The aims of this study were to 1) determine if continuous eruption occurs in the maxillary teeth, 2) assess the magnitude of the continuous eruption, and 3) evaluate the effects of continuous eruption on the different periodontal parameters by using data from the population-based cohort of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). The jaw casts of 140 participants from the baseline (SHIP-0) and 16-y follow-up (SHIP-3) were digitized as 3-dimensional models. Robust reference points were set to match the tooth eruption stage at SHIP-0 and SHIP-3. Reference points were set on the occlusal surface of the contralateral premolar and molar teeth, the palatal fossa of an incisor, and the rugae of the hard palate. Reference points were combined to represent 3 virtual occlusal planes. Continuous eruption was measured as the mean height difference between the 3 planes and rugae fix points at SHIP-0 and SHIP-3. Probing depth, clinical attachment levels, gingiva above the cementoenamel junction (gingival height), and number of missing teeth were clinically assessed in the maxilla. Changes in periodontal variables were regressed onto changes in continuous eruption after adjustment for age, sex, number of filled teeth, and education or tooth wear. Continuous tooth eruption >1 mm over the 16 y was found in 4 of 140 adults and averaged to 0.33 mm, equaling 0.021 mm/y. In the total sample, an increase in continuous eruption was significantly associated with decreases in mean gingival height (B = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.03). In a subsample of participants without tooth loss, continuous eruption was negatively associated with PD. This study confirmed that continuous eruption is clearly detectable and may contribute to lower gingival heights in the maxilla.Entities:
Keywords: cohort study; gingival recession; periodontal attachment loss; periodontal pocket; periodontitis; tooth eruption
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33655796 PMCID: PMC8258728 DOI: 10.1177/0022034521999363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Res ISSN: 0022-0345 Impact factor: 6.116
Figure 1.Occlusal view of usable (left) and unusable (right) models displaying the 3-dimensional surface of the triangulated networks from the MeshLab software.
Figure 2.Flowchart describing the derivation of the study sample. SHIP, Study of Health in Pomerania; SHIP-0, baseline; SHIP-3, follow-up at 16 y.
Figure 3.Visualization of the method. (A) Occlusal view of 3-dimensional surface model from SHIP-0 indicating the position of the reference points. (B) Corresponding model from SHIP-3 of the same participants: reference points were placed only on areas that did not change during follow-up. (C) Visualization of the 3 occlusal planes (Nos. 1 to 3). (D) Visualization of the vertical distances that are perpendicular between the occlusal plane (No. 1) and the palatal reference points. SHIP, Study of Health in Pomerania; SHIP-0, baseline; SHIP-3, follow-up at 16 y.
Characteristics of the Complete Cohort, Study Population, and Subsample of Participants Without Incident Tooth Loss: Baseline (SHIP-0) and 16-y Follow-up (SHIP-3).
| Complete Cohort | Study Population | Participants without Incident Tooth Loss | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | SHIP-0 | SHIP-0 | SHIP-3 | SHIP-0 | SHIP-3 | ||
|
| 4,254 | 140 | 140 | 113 | 113 | ||
| Follow-up time, y | 16.0 ± 0.5 | 16.0 ± 0.5 | |||||
| Age, y | 49.8 ± 16.4 | 32.4 ± 8.2 | 48.5 ± 8.2 | <0.001 | 32.6 ± 8.4 | 48.7 ± 8.3 | |
| Male sex | 2,091 (49.2) | 68 (48.6) | 53 (46.9) | ||||
| School education | |||||||
| <10 y | 1,706 (40.1) | 7 (5.0) | 5 (4.4) | ||||
| 10 y | 1,851 (43.5) | 87 (62.1) | 70 (62.0) | ||||
| >10 y | 696 (16.4) | 46 (32.9) | 38 (33.6) | ||||
| Smoking status | 0.39 | 0.55 | |||||
| Never smoker | 1,527 (35.9) | 60 (42.9) | 56 (40.0) | 51 (45.1) | 48 (42.5) | ||
| Ex-smoker | 1,443 (33.9) | 39 (27.9) | 58 (41.4) | 33 (29.2) | 46 (40.7) | ||
| Current smoker | 1,284 (30.2) | 41 (29.3) | 26 (18.6) | 29 (25.7) | 19 (16.8) | ||
| Abdominal obesity, yes | 1,316 (30.9) | 24 (17.1) | 49 (35.0) | <0.001 | 18 (15.9) | 38 (33.6) | <0.001 |
| Diabetes mellitus, yes | 467 (11.0) | 3 (2.1) | 10 (7.1) | 0.04 | 3 (2.7) | 9 (8.0) | 0.07 |
| No. of teeth | 17.6 ± 9.6 | 26.7 ± 1.6 | 26.5 ± 1.7 | <0.001 | 26.7 ± 1.5 | 26.7 ± 1.5 | |
|
| 3,014 | 140 | 140 | ||||
| Dental checkup in last year, yes | 2,718 (90.2) | 123 (87.9) | 125 (89.3) | 0.84 | 101 (89.4) | 103 (91.2) | 0.81 |
| Toothbrushig frequency ≥2/d, yes | 2,530 (83.9) | 116 (82.9) | 120 (85.7) | 0.45 | 98 (86.7) | 98 (86.7) | 1.00 |
| Orthodontic treatment, yes | 576 (19.1) | 43 (30.7) | 35 (31.0) | ||||
| Ekfeldt score | 11.1 ± 8.5 | 9.0 ± 5.1 | 8.7 ± 4.8 | ||||
| Maximum canine facet caliber, mm | 3.4 ± 1.2 | 3.8 ± 1.3 | <0.001 | 3.5 ± 1.2 | 3.8 ± 1.2 | <0.001 | |
| Point-to-plane distance, mm | 12.5 ± 2.3 | 12.8 ± 2.3 | <0.001 | 12.5 ± 2.4 | 12.8 ± 2.4 | <0.001 | |
| Restricted to maxilla | |||||||
| No. of teeth | 11.1 ± 3.0 | 13.5 ± 0.7 | 13.4 ± 0.8 | <0.001 | 13.5 ± 0.7 | 13.5 ± 0.7 | |
| PD, mm | 2.50 ± 0.76 | 2.03 ± 0.39 | 2.31 ± 0.41 | <0.001 | 2.02 ± 0.37 | 2.32 ± 0.43 | <0.001 |
| Extent PD ≥4 mm, % | 12.3 ± 18.0 | 3.1 ± 6.0 | 6.6 ± 10.0 | <0.001 | 3.0 ± 5.5 | 6.9 ± 10.4 | <0.001 |
| CAL, mm | 2.31 ± 1.75 | 1.20 ± 0.78 | 1.74 ± 0.77 | <0.001 | 1.16 ± 0.73 | 1.73 ± 0.75 | <0.001 |
| Extent CAL ≥3 mm, % | 40.3 ± 34.7 | 16.7 ± 18.9 | 21.1 ± 20.0 | 0.003 | 15.6 ± 18.0 | 20.9 ± 19.4 | 0.001 |
| Gingiva above CEJ, mm | 0.17 ± 1.26 | 0.83 ± 0.61 | 0.56 ± 0.61 | <0.001 | 0.85 ± 0.59 | 0.58 ± 0.58 | <0.001 |
| No. of filled teeth | 2.9 ± 1.9 | 2.5 ± 2.0 | 3.3 ± 2.1 | <0.001 | 2.5 ± 2.0 | 3.4 ± 2.1 | <0.001 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD or No. (%). P values were obtained via paired t tests (continuous variables), McNemar’s tests (dichotomous variables), and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (ordinal variables).
CAL, clinical attachment level; CEJ, cementoenamel junction; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; PD, probing depth; SHIP, Study of Health in Pomerania.
All participants of SHIP-0 with complete information on the presented variables.
Subgroup of dentate participants with complete periodontal examination in the maxilla.
Regression Models Evaluating the Associations between 16-y Changes in Point-to-Plane Distances (Exposure) and Periodontal Variables (Outcomes): All Participants and after Exclusion of Those with Incident Tooth Loss.
| Model 1
| Model 2
| Model 3
| Model 4
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | ||||||||
| All participants ( | ||||||||
| Mean PD, mm | −0.17 (−0.41 to 0.07) | 0.17 | −0.20 (−0.43 to 0.04) | 0.10 | −0.18 (−0.42 to 0.06) | 0.14 | −0.19 (−0.43 to 0.04) | 0.11 |
| Extent PD ≥4 mm, % | −1.49 (−8.36 to 5.37) | 0.67 | −1.72 (−8.49 to 5.05) | 0.62 | −1.11 (−7.76 to 5.54) | 0.74 | −1.91 (−8.14 to 4.33) | 0.55 |
| Mean CAL, mm | 0.15 (−0.20 to 0.51) | 0.40 | 0.08 (−0.25 to 0.41) | 0.64 | 0.10 (−0.24 to 0.44) | 0.57 | 0.10 (−0.26 to 0.46) | 0.58 |
| Extent CAL ≥3 mm, % | 5.73 (−4.26 to 15.73) | 0.26 | 4.23 (−5.18 to 13.63) | 0.38 | 4.49 (−5.26 to 14.25) | 0.37 | 4.58 (−5.91 to 15.08) | 0.39 |
| Mean GH above CEJ, mm | −0.34 (−0.65 to −0.03) | 0.030 | −0.30 (−0.59 to −0.003) | 0.048 | −0.30 (−0.59 to −0.01) | 0.043 | −0.33 (−0.65 to −0.02) | 0.036 |
| Tooth loss (at least 1) | 3.87 (0.62 to 24.13)
| 0.15 | 3.57 (0.54 to 23.56)
| 0.19 | 3.91 (0.52 to 29.37)
| 0.18 | 4.01 (0.44 to 36.33)
| 0.22 |
| Excluding those with incident tooth loss ( | ||||||||
| Mean PD, mm | −0.24 (−0.51 to 0.03) | 0.08 | −0.30 (−0.55 to −0.04) | 0.02 | −0.27 (−0.53 to −0.02) | 0.038 | −0.33 (−0.60 to −0.06) | 0.017 |
| Extent PD ≥4 mm, % | −4.45 (−11.66 to 2.76) | 0.23 | −4.94 (−12.46 to 2.58) | 0.20 | −4.24 (−11.29 to 2.81) | 0.24 | −6.40 (−13.51 to 0.70) | 0.08 |
| Mean CAL, mm | 0.12 (−0.33 to 0.56) | 0.61 | −0.06 (−0.44 to 0.33) | 0.76 | −0.04 (−0.44 to 0.35) | 0.83 | −0.04 (−0.49 to 0.42) | 0.87 |
| Extent CAL ≥3 mm, % | 4.12 (−7.50 to 15.73) | 0.49 | 0.66 (−9.87 to 11.18) | 0.90 | 0.92 (−9.56 to 11.41) | 0.86 | 0.31 (−11.89 to 12.52) | 0.96 |
| Mean GH above CEJ, mm | −0.37 (−0.76 to 0.01) | 0.06 | −0.24 (−0.59 to 0.12) | 0.19 | −0.24 (−0.60 to 0.11) | 0.18 | −0.32 (−0.72 to 0.07) | 0.11 |
All models included the follow-up time (logarithmized; as offset variable).
CAL, clinical attachment level; CEJ, cementoenamel junction; GH, gingival height; PD, probing depth.
Model 1 (main model): adjusted for age, sex, school education, number of filled teeth.
Model 2: age, sex, number of filled teeth, Ekfeldt score.
Model 3: age, sex, number of filled teeth, canine facet size.
Model 4: age, sex, number of filled teeth, Ekfeldt score, canine facet size, school education, smoking status, abdominal obesity, diabetes mellitus, dental check-up during the last year, tooth brushing frequency and orthodontic treatment (fully adjusted model).
Values are presented as odds ratio (95% CI).