Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
H. Löe (1967)
The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index Systems.Journal of periodontology, 38 6
A. Than, R. Duguid, A. McKendrick (1982)
Relationship between restorations and the level of the periodontal attachment.Journal of clinical periodontology, 9 3
H. Loe, P. Holm‐Pedersen (1965)
ABSENCE AND PRESENCE OF FLUID FROM NORMAL AND INFLAMED GINGIVAE.Periodontics, 3
F. Gardner (1982)
Margins of complete crowns--literature review.The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 48 4
G. Pedersen (1977)
Exact method for clinical measurement of loss of periodontal attachment.Scandinavian journal of dental research, 85 6
William Richter, Hiroshi Ueno (1973)
Relationship of crown margin placement to gingival inflammation.The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 30 2
J. Silness (1980)
Fixed prosthodontics and periodontal health.Dental clinics of North America, 24 2
J. Mclean, F. von (1971)
The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo techniqueBritish Dental Journal, 131
G. Christensen (1966)
Marginal fit of gold inlay castings.The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 16 2
Björn Björn, Björn Björn, Grkovic Grkovic (1970)
Marginal fit of restorations and its relation to periodontal bone level. II . CrownsOdontal Ray, 21
David Koth (1982)
Full crown restorations and gingival inflammation in a controlled population.The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 48 6
J. Valderhaug (1980)
Periodontal conditions and carious lesions following the insertion of fixed prostheses: a 10-year follow-up study.International dental journal, 30 4
Abstract — Interproximal subgingival marginal discrepancies of full coverage restorations were compared with adjacent crevicular fluid flow and percentage radiographic periodontal bone loss. A total of 88 patients with 116 premolar crowns were evaluated. Patients were selected at random from student treatment records, Institute of Dental Prosthetics, Royal Dental College, Copenhagen, Denmark. Crevicular fluid collected on filter paper strips from the interproximal area was stained with 0.2% ninhydrin solution and the length of the area measured. Marginal fit was determined by measuring the marginal excess or deficit recorded in a polyether impression. The amount of bone around each crowned tooth was measured on five times magnified prints of radiographs. Percentage bone loss was calculated by dividing the distance from the alveolar crest to the most coronal level at which the periodontal space retained its normal width by the distance from the alveolar crest to the root apex. Correlating marginal fit with crevicular fluid within gingival index scores showed r = 0.32 (G.I.l) and r = 0.42 (G.I.2). Fit vs percentage bone loss showed r=0.68 and r = 0.59, respectively (P<0.001). Differentiation was further made within the 0.0–0.2 mm range discrepancy by categorizing the data in four groups. Comparing fit relative to crevicular fluid and bone loss, most of these groups were significantly different when analyzed statistically using the Mann‐Whitney U‐Test. Small defects <0.050 mm were associated with significantly less fluid flow and bone loss than defects exceeding this value.
European Journal of Oral Sciences – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 1986
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.