Real-Voltas Francisco, Galletti Cosimo, Gelosa Adi Samuel, Figueras-Alvarez Oscar, Flores-Fraile Javier, Cabratosa-Termes Josep
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Jun 25. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13508.
The selection of the finishing line for dental abutment preparation is influenced by various factors such as the restorative material, esthetic demands, procedural simplicity, and the clinician's experience. However, fundamental principles of tooth preparation, including the preservation of tooth structure, retention form, abutment strength, and margin integrity, are paramount in ensuring predictable and successful prosthodontic outcomes.
This study aims to evaluate the extent of tooth reduction in upper central incisors, canines, and premolars when three abutment preparation techniques-horizontal (chamfer) and vertical (biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) and modified BOPT (BOPTm))-are applied.
Ninety upper maxillary dental models were used, subdivided into three groups: 30 for right central incisors, 30 for right canines, and 30 for right first premolars. Each group was further divided based on the finishing line applied: horizontal (chamfer), vertical (BOPT), and modified vertical (BOPTm). Tooth reduction was quantified by subtracting the volume of the unprepared tooth from that of the prepared tooth. Statistical differences between the groups were analyzed using univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a significance level set at 0.05.
Tooth shape significantly influenced the amount of dental tissue removed. For square-shaped teeth, the volume of reduction was relatively consistent across all techniques. However, in triangular-shaped teeth, the choice of technique notably impacted the amount of tooth reduction. Among the finishing lines, the BOPT technique resulted in the least tooth reduction in both incisors and canines, while the modified BOPT (BOPTm) was the most aggressive. No significant differences were observed in the premolar group. Additionally, both chamfer and modified BOPT lines required less tooth reduction in premolars compared to incisors and canines. The BOPT technique did not show significant differences in tooth reduction across the different tooth types.
The BOPT finishing line was the least invasive in terms of tooth reduction for incisors and canines, while the modified BOPT technique (BOPTm) resulted in more aggressive tooth preparation. In the premolar group, both chamfer and modified BOPT lines required less tooth reduction compared to the incisors and canines. No significant variations in reduction were observed when the BOPT technique was applied to different tooth types.
牙基预备终末线的选择受多种因素影响,如修复材料、美学需求、操作简便性以及临床医生的经验。然而,牙体预备的基本原则,包括牙体组织的保存、固位形、基牙强度和边缘完整性,对于确保可预测且成功的修复效果至关重要。
本研究旨在评估应用三种基牙预备技术——水平(倒角)和垂直(生物导向预备技术(BOPT)及改良BOPT(BOPTm))时,上颌中切牙、尖牙和前磨牙的牙体组织磨除量。
使用90个上颌牙模型,分为三组:30个用于右侧中切牙,30个用于右侧尖牙,30个用于右侧第一前磨牙。每组再根据应用的终末线进一步细分:水平(倒角)、垂直(BOPT)和改良垂直(BOPTm)。通过从预备后牙体的体积中减去未预备牙体的体积来量化牙体组织磨除量。使用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)分析组间的统计学差异,显著性水平设定为0.05。
牙体形状显著影响牙体组织的磨除量。对于方形牙,所有技术的磨除量相对一致。然而,对于三角形牙,技术的选择对牙体组织磨除量有显著影响。在所有终末线中,BOPT技术在中切牙和尖牙中的牙体组织磨除量最少,而改良BOPT(BOPTm)最为激进。在前磨牙组中未观察到显著差异。此外,与中切牙和尖牙相比,倒角和改良BOPT线在前磨牙中的牙体组织磨除量较少。BOPT技术在不同牙体类型中的牙体组织磨除量未显示出显著差异。
就中切牙和尖牙的牙体组织磨除而言,BOPT终末线侵入性最小,而改良BOPT技术(BOPTm)导致更激进的牙体预备。在前磨牙组中,与中切牙和尖牙相比,倒角和改良BOPT线的牙体组织磨除量较少。当BOPT技术应用于不同牙体类型时,未观察到磨除量的显著差异。