4.5 Article

Narrowing of the radicular pulp space in coronally restored teeth

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 1251-1257

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1899-8

关键词

Dental pulp calcification; Pulp canal; Pulp stone; Pulpal obliteration; Root canal; Secondary dentine

资金

  1. Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology, and Cariology of the Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Narrowed radicular pulp spaces are frequently observed in teeth wearing extended restorations. The present study investigates whether the narrowing of particularly the radicular pulp space can be attributed to coronal restorations. The study is based on an anonymized copy of the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) database from the Center of Dental Medicine of the University of Zurich. One hundred CBCT scans were selected out of 7317 data sets to match either a crowned (group A; n = 50) or a filled tooth (group B; n = 50) with a contralateral healthy, unrestored, and caries-free control tooth at the same position, respectively. Cross-sectional images were adjusted in the coronal, middle, and apical root third of each subjected tooth. Screenshots were taken in that position and analyzed. The area occupied by the pulp space was determined as percentage area of the whole root diameter on each cross section. The resulting values were compared between restored and control teeth. In both groups (crowned and filled teeth) and in all the three root thirds, the radicular pulp space was significantly narrower in the restored teeth compared to the control teeth. The strongest narrowing effect was observed in the coronal root third and it decreased towards the apical root third (both groups). Teeth with coronal restorations show within the limitations of the present study a significant narrowing of their radicular pulp space. The asserted narrowing could have a complicating effect if root canal treatment becomes necessary in those teeth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据