Scribd
Upload
75 views

Prevalence of Overhang Margins in Posterior Amalgam Restorations and Alveolar Bone Resorption

This study examined the prevalence of overhanging margins on posterior dental restorations and their association with alveolar bone resorption. The researchers evaluated 2089 restored surfaces in 100 patients and found that 1185 surfaces, or 51%, had overhanging margins. Teeth with overhanging restorations were found to have significantly greater loss of attachment and bone loss compared to teeth without overhanging margins. The results indicate a high prevalence of overhanging amalgam margins that adversely impact periodontal health.

Uploaded by

Naji Z. Arandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views

Prevalence of Overhang Margins in Posterior Amalgam Restorations and Alveolar Bone Resorption

This study examined the prevalence of overhanging margins on posterior dental restorations and their association with alveolar bone resorption. The researchers evaluated 2089 restored surfaces in 100 patients and found that 1185 surfaces, or 51%, had overhanging margins. Teeth with overhanging restorations were found to have significantly greater loss of attachment and bone loss compared to teeth without overhanging margins. The results indicate a high prevalence of overhanging amalgam margins that adversely impact periodontal health.

Uploaded by

Naji Z. Arandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

J College Dentistry

Vol. 17(1), 2005

Prevalence of overhang

Prevalence of overhang margins in posterior


amalgam restorations and alveolar bone resorption
Adel F. Ibraheem BDS, MSc.(1)
Khulod A. Al-Safi BDS, MSc.(2)

ABSTRACT
Background: Overhanging dental restorations(ODR) are a major dental health problem, it is an etiologic factor in the
progression of periodontal disease, and are alarmingly prevalent .The purpose of this study was to determine the
prevalence of overhang margins and associated periodontal status in 100 patients, clinically detectable overhang
margins were recorded on posterior teeth.
Materials and Methods: Overhanging margins on a proximal restoration were detected by using of bitewing
radiographs. 2089 restored surfaces were evaluated, of these 1185 had overhanging margins.
Results: As far as related to their effect (ODR) on periodontal health, significantly more bone loss-attachment occurs
adjacent to ODR compared to teeth without ODR.
Conclusion: This study show high prevalence of overhanging amalgam margins, further more, this study show that
ODRs have a significant influence on periodontal status.
Keywords: Overhang, amalgam, bone resorption. (J Coll Dentistry 2005; 17(1): 11-13)

INTRODUCTION
Overhanging dental restorations (ODR) are
a major dental health problem. An ODR is
defined as an extension of restoration material
beyond the confines of a cavity preparation (1,
5).
They have been strongly implicated as an
etiologic factor in the progression of periodontal
disease and alarmingly prevalent (4, 15,26). In
addition to promoting plaque accumulation ,
they change a nondestructive subgingival flora
to a destructive one (3,,8,10,15).There is good
documentation that bleeding , gingivitis, and
bone loss increase in tissue adjacent to ODR as
compared to homologous teeth (11,12,14,22).Many
investigators(1,2,19-26)have reported upon the
adverse effect of poor restorations on the health
of the adjacent periodontal tissue. The
relationship of ODR to periodontal disease has
been studied by three methods (9-14,18,19). The
most common method is to compare the
periodontal status of teeth with ODR with
homologous teeth without ODR (12,19).
Another approach utilized extracted teeth to
directly measure attachment on tooth surface
with and without ODR (14,18). By the third
method, intentionally placed ODR were studied
in humans for their effects on the subgingival
microflora and periodontal tissue (15).

(1) Assistant professor, Department of conservative dentistry,


College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad.
(2) Assistant professor, Department of Periodontology, College of
Dentistry, University of Baghdad.

Restorative Dentistry

The purpose of this study was to determine


the prevalence of overhang margins and
associated bone resorption in patients who had
attended
conservative
and
periodontal
departments in the College of Dentistry,
University of Baghdad.

MATERIALS AND METHODS


One hundred patients were recruited from
those who attended conservative and
periodontal departments seeking for operative or
periodontal treatment. Suitable subjects had to
have posterior teeth present in at least two
quadrants; patients with complicated medical
conditions
were
excluded.
Intra
oral
examination in which premolar and molar
(excluding third molars) were evaluated for loss
of attachment at six sites around each tooth.
Subsequently all mesial , distal, buccal and
lingual surfaces of the same tooth assessed
using fine sharp sickle probe (17),and scored for
the presence or absence of overhang margins;
Score 0 = unrestored surface
Score 1 =restoration within 1 mm. of the
gingival margin or below, but without
clinically detected overhang margin.
Score 2 =restoration within 1 mm. of gingival
margin or below, but with clinically
detected ledge indicative of overhanging
margin.
At completion of the clinical examination,
posterior bitewing radiographs (Kodak, Japan)
were taken. Radiographs were then viewed
under standardized conditions, using a constant

11

J College Dentistry

Vol. 17(1), 2005

light source and no magnification, to measure


the level of alveolar bone.
Overhanging margins were recorded on
mesial or distal surface, and if the radiograph
image showed a step or ledge extending beyond
the normal smooth profile of the tooth, or a
beveled appearance at the base of a proximal
restoration, it was attributed to overhang margin
present in a concavity on the surface of the tooth
(17)
.
Proximal surfaces were scored from the
radiographs as follows;
Score 0 = unrestored surface.
Score 1 =restoration without visible
overhanging margins.
Score 2 =restoration with visible overhanging
margin in a tooth adjacent to another tooth.
Statistical Analysis
Computation for the contingency table
analysis (x) were performed, also probability
and t-test, to verfy the significance of alveolar
bone loss.

RESULTS
In this study the range of the age of one
hundred subjects were (2056 years), (25)
subjects had no missing teeth, the other (75)
subjects had missing teeth. (2089) Restored
surfaces were evaluated, from (5089) surfaces
that were examined, and the other (3000)
surfaces were with no restorations.
In applying the statistical method, table (1)
show the number and percentage of overhanging
margins detected clinically and / or
radiograghically on a proximal restoration.
When comparing the restorative status of
mesial, distal, buccal and lingual surfaces, there
was a significant difference between lingual and
buccal surfaces when compared with mesial and
distal surfaces. This indicated that none
proximal sites had a much lower prevalence of
overhanging margins. There were no
statistically significant differences between
mesial and distal sites or between buccal and
lingual sites.
Periodontal disease and overhangs:
In this study the relationship of ODR to the
periodontal disease has been studied by
measuring attachment loss on tooth surfaces
with and without ODR, also the radiographic
alveolar bone levels were measured. Table (2)
shows high percentage of loss of attachment in
mesial and distal restored surfaces with
overhang margins comparing with lingual and
buccal sites, this table also show high difference

Restorative Dentistry

Prevalence of overhang

in the loss of attachment between restored with


overhang and restored without overhang.
Table (3) shows the level of alveolar bone
loss. In this investigation the bone loss was
measured on mesial and distal sites only when
the cemento-enamel junction could be seen
radiographically and could be measured easily.
There was a significant difference in bone loss
between surfaces. The percentage of alveolar
bone loss in restored surface with overhang
margins higher than other, in other word,
significantly more bone loss- attachment
occurred adjacent to ODR compared to teeth
without ODR.
Table (1): The restored status of different
posterior tooth surfaces.
(x=1141.565,df=7,p<0.007)
Status
Unrestored
Surfaces
Res. with no
overhang
Res. with
overhang
No restorations

Distal

No. of Sites
Mesial Lingua Bucca Total

490

406

1100 1004 3000

300

303

126

170

904

520

500

75

90

1185

820

808

201

260

2089

Table (2): Comparison of loss of attachment


and restored status of the tooth.
(x=8.907,df=6,p<0.001)
Percentage of loss of attachment
Mesial
Distal
Lingual Buccal
<3mm>3mm<3mm>3mm<3mm>3mm<3mm>3mm
Unrest 40.9 58.0 16.6 80.4 60.4 39.6 50.9 49.1
Res. With
30.5 59.5 20.3 79.7 70.1 29.9 75.2 24.8
no overhang
Res. With
22.8 77.2 20.8 79.2 40.3 59.7 35.8 64.2
overhang
Status

Table (3): Comparison of alveolar bone


resorption and restored status of teeth.
(x=1.073,df=6,p<0.01)
Percentage of bone loss
Mesial
Distal
Status
No bone Bone No bone
Bone
loss
loss
loss
loss
9.5%
89.6%
10.2%
Unrestored 70.5%
Res. With
91.6%
8.4%
66.7
11.3%
no
overhang
Res. with
88.8%
11.2%
86.3%
13.7%
overhang

12

J College Dentistry

Vol. 17(1), 2005

DISCUSSION
The results of this study emphasize the
effects of iatrogenic factors on periodontal
inflammation. It is apparent that overhangs are
one of accumulative factors, that promote an
increase in plaque mass and increase the
specific periodontal as well as caries pathogens
in the plaque, and so overhangs are very
common and destructive to the periodontium as
well as to the tooth substance.
Many authors (19-26) have shown and
reported these effects of overhang amalgam
restorations. In this study, 51% of posterior
amalgam restorations in (100) patients had
overhanging margins, which indicates that the
prevalence of ODR were very high. This results
were in agreement with the results obtained
from other studies (16-19,21).
Also this study shows that, bone loss,
attachment loss and inflammation occurred
more significantly adjacent to ODR compared to
control teeth without ODR. Deeper pockets
were also found adjacent to ODR than control
teeth, and this again was in agreement with
other studies in this respect (6,7,11-14,).

REFERENCES
1. Alexandar AG. Periodontal aspects of conservative
dentistry. Br Dent J 1967; 123: 542-3.
2. Alexandar AG. Periodontal aspects of conservative
dentistry. Br Dent J 1968; 124:111-4.
3. Axelsson P, Lindhe W. The effect of a preventive
program on dental plaque, gingivitis and caries in
school children. results after 1 and 2 years. J Clin
Periodont 1974; 1:126-30.
4. Bjorby D, Loe H. The relative significance of different
factors in the initiation and development of
periodontal inflammation. Scan Symp on Perio Res
1967; 2: 76-7.
5. Brunsvold MA, Lane JJ. The prevalence of overhanging
dental restorations and their relationship to
periodontal disease. J Clin Periodont 1990; 17;2:67.
6. Chen J, Burch J, Beck F,Horton J. Periodontal
attachment loss associated with proximal tooth
restorations. J Prosthet Den 1987; 57:416-20.
7. Clamen L, Koidis P, Burch J. Proximal tooth surface
quality and paradontal probing depth. J Am Dent
Asso 1986; 113: 890-3.
8. Ghes M, verninto N. Root morphology - clinical
significance in pathogensis and treatment of
periodontal disease. J Am Dent Asso 1980; 101: 62733.

Restorative Dentistry

Prevalence of overhang

9.

Gilmore N, Scheiham A. Overhanging dental


restorations and periodontal disease. J Clin Periodont
1971; 1, 42: 8-12.
10. Gorozo I, Newman HN, Strahan JD. Amalgam
restoration, plaque removal and periodontal healt J
Clin Periodontol 1979; 6: 93-105.
11. Hakkarainen H, Ainamo J. Influence of overhanging
posterior restoration on alveolar bone height in adults.
J Clin Periodont 1980; 7: 114-20.
12. Jaggcost MK, Howell TH. Alveolar bone destruction
due to overhanging amalgam in periodontal disease. J
Clin Periodont 1980; 51: 599-602.
13. Kesathelyi G, Szabo I. Influence of class two amalgam
fillings on attachment loss. J Clin Periodont 1980; 11:
81-6.
14. Kesathelyi G, Szabo I, Strahan JD. Loss of attachment
adjacent to class two carious lesions. 1980 J Clin
Periodont 5; 11: 120-3.
15. Lang NP, Kiel RA, Anderhalden K. Clinical and
microbiological effects of subgingival restorations
with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. 198 J
Clin Periodont 3; 10: 563-78.
16.Lervick T,Riordan T, Haugejorden D.Periodontal
disease and proximal overhangs on amalgam
restorations in Norwegian 21year old.Com Dent and
Oral Epidemiol 1984; 12:264-8.
17. Pack RC, Coxhead LJ, Mcdonald BW. The prevalence
of overhanging margins in posterior amalgam
restoration and periodontal consequences. J Clin
Periodont 1990; 17; 3:146-152.
18.Than A, Duguid R, Mckendrick A. Relationship
between restorations and the level of periodontal
attachment. J Clinical Periodontol 1982; 9:193-202.
19. Trott JR, Sherkat A. Effect of class two amalgam
restoration on the health of gingival, clinical survey.
Journal of Canadian Den Asso 1964; 30: 766-70.
20. Waerhaug J. Effect of rough surfaces upon gingival
tissue. J Den Res 1956; 35: 323-25.
21. Wright WH. Local factors in periodontal disease.
Journal Periodontol 1963; 1:163.
22.Gilmore N,Sheiham, A.Overhanging dental restoration
and periodontal disease. Journal Periodontol 1997;
72:82
23. Zander HA. Effect of silicate cement and amalgam on
the gingival. J Am Dent Asso 1975; 55:11-15.
24. Zander HA. Tissue reaction to dental calculus and to
filling materials. Journal of Den Med 1958; 13:101-4.
25. Pack A, Coxhead L, McDonalad B.The prevalence of
overhang margins in posterior amalgam restorations
and periodontal consequences. J Clin Periodont1996;
23: 112.
26. Roderiques HJ, Stroham JD, Newman HN. Effect on
gingival health of removing overhanging margins of
interproximal subgingival amalgam restorations. J
Clin Periodont 1999; 70: 457.

13

You might also like