09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

download 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

of 47

Transcript of 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    1/47

    Existing Restoration - Clinical Status

    Secondary Caries

    Marginal Integritymarginal defect

    overhang

    open margin

    Contour

    proximal contact

    axial contour

    occlusion

    Biomechanical Form

    restoration fracture

    tooth fracture

    Esthetic

    patients esthetic

    concern

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    2/47

    Marginal Defect - Amalgam

    Restoration

    It is the second

    most commonreasons given

    for replacing an

    amaglam

    restoration

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    3/47

    Reasons for replacing an existing restoration with

    defective margin- Survey of 124 dentists

    It is a plaque trap, thus

    increasing the chance of

    developing secondary caries(37%)

    More likely to find secondary

    caries on the cavity wall below

    the defect (25%)

    AmalgamTooth

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    4/47

    Reasons for replacing an existing restoration with

    defective margin

    It is a plaque trap, thus

    increasing the chance of

    developing secondary

    caries.

    Is this hypothesis

    supported by

    scientific facts?

    AmalgamTooth

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    5/47

    Reasons for replacing an amalgam

    restoration with defective margin

    Are there direct scientific data showing a

    relationship between marginal defectand the development of secondarycaries?

    NO

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    6/47

    Indirect/Empirical Evidence

    We are seeing the majority of the disease in a smallpopulation of our patients; therefore not everybody isequally susceptible to the disease.

    If physical barrier for oral hygiene is a problem, whydo some pits and fissures never develop into lesions.

    Assuming these defects on the margin of an agingrestoration has been there for years; why no lesion hasbeen developed in all these years.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    7/47

    Reasons for replacing an existing restoration with

    defective margin- Survey of 124 dentists

    More likely to find

    secondary caries on the

    cavity wall below the

    defect

    Is this hypothesissupported by

    scientific facts?

    AmalgamTooth

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    8/47

    Reasons for replacing a restoration

    with defective margin

    There is scientific evidence showing thatthere is NO relationship between

    marginal defect and the presence of

    secondary caries on the cavity wall

    below the defect

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    9/47

    30 extracted teeth with occlusal

    amalgam restorations were

    sectioned.

    Caries were identified byimbibing the section in with

    quinoline and examined in

    polarized light

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    10/47

    How should we make the decision

    on when to replace??

    Replacement decision should not be based

    on the quality of the marginALONE

    Instead

    Replacement decision should be based on

    risks and/or the presence of pathology

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    11/47

    Replacement Decisions

    Risk Factors

    Risk factors related to dental caries and periodontaldiseases.

    Presence of pulpal pathology (e.g. sensitivity totemperature change, sweet).

    Patients complaint (esthetic concern).

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    12/47

    Existing Restoration - Clinical Status

    Secondary Caries

    Marginal Integritymarginal defect

    overhang

    open margin

    Contourproximal contact

    axial contour

    occlusion

    Biomechanical Form

    restoration fracture

    tooth fracture

    Esthetic

    patients esthetic

    concern

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    13/47

    Contour

    Status

    Proximal contact - open, rough, location

    Axial contour - over/undercontour, location

    Occlusion

    Diagnosis is based on visual, patients chiefcomplain and radiographs

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    14/47

    No Proximal Contact - Treatment Decision

    No treatment indicated if it is physiologic (e.g.natural spacing between teeth)

    Replace if patient has esthetic concern or

    complain about food impaction, and/or in thepresence of periodontal diseases.

    Grey area

    Complaining about food impaction between 2 teeth that

    have no existing restoration, no evidence of periodontaldiseases.

    Complaining about food impaction - occlusal contactOK, but gingival embrasure area open because of

    gingival recession.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    15/47

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    16/47

    Contour

    Replacement DecisionRough Proximal Contact

    Smooth or replace only if patient complain

    about not being able to floss

    Proximal Contact at Non-physiologic Location

    Use the same criteria as no proximal contact(no treatment indicated in the absence of

    pathology, patients complain and estheticconcern)

    C

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    17/47

    ContourReplacement Decision and

    OptionsAxial contour

    Undercontour - e.g. porcelain fracture from PFM

    crownOvercontour - e.g. buccal or lingual axial surfaces

    overcontour

    Recontour or replace if patient has esthetic orfunctional concern; presence of periodontal

    pathology

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    18/47

    ContourReplacement Decision and

    Options

    Occlusion

    Dx: usually based on patients complain

    Hyper-occlusion/interference - adjust

    Hypo-occlusion - replace

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    19/47

    Existing Restoration - Clinical Status

    Secondary Caries

    Marginal Integritymarginal defect

    overhang

    open margin

    Contourproximal contact

    axial contour

    occlusion

    Biomechanical Form

    restoration fracture

    tooth fracture

    Esthetic

    patients esthetic

    concern

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    20/47

    Biomechanical Form

    Status

    Tooth with bulk fracture or fracture line

    Restoration with bulk fracture or fracture line

    Diagnosis

    Visual, patients complain, differential loading

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    21/47

    Differential loading using tooth slooth

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    22/47

    Tooth Fracture - Anterior

    Treatment OptionsBased on the size of the fracture:

    Small - recontour, direct composite

    Moderate - direct composite,composite/porcelain veneers; full crown(PFM, all porcelain)

    Large - direct composite,composite/porcelain veneers, full crown,RCT/core buildup/crown

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    23/47

    Tooth Fracture - Anterior

    Small -Treatment Options

    Recontour or monitor - should be given as anoption when the fracture is minor and onlylimit to the incisal edge area

    ReasonThe most common reason for patient fracturing theincisal edge (minor) is excessive bruxism. Thesepatients usually grind the incisal edge of their Mxanteriors to thin edges and eventually part of the

    enamel will fracture off. The prognosis of restoringthese fractures with composite is at bestquestionable (due to the limitation of the mechanicalproperties of the material). If you are going restorethese lesion, you need to inform patient that the

    restoration is for cosmetic purpose only.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    24/47

    Tooth Fracture - Anterior

    Moderate -Treatment Options

    Direct composite -Disadvantages:questionable prognosis due to the possibilityof fracture; esthetic result? Advantages: cost,conservation of tooth structure

    Full crown - Disadvantages cost, notconservative; Advantages: good prognosis;good esthetic result

    Composite veneers -Disadvantages: cost;no advantage over direct composite

    Porcelain veneers -Disadvantages: cost;Advantages good prognosis, conservation of

    tooth structure; good esthetic result

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    25/47

    Tooth Fracture - Anterior

    Large -Treatment Options

    Direct composite:Advantages: cost,conservation of tooth structureDisadvantages: very questionable prognosis

    Full crown: may not be an option due toinadequate retention and resistance form

    Composite/Porcelain veneers: may be yourbest option without involving RCT

    RCT/core buildup/crown: may be your bestoption depending on the amount of toothstructure left; Disadvantages: cost

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    26/47

    Tooth Fracture - Anterior

    Large -Treatment Options

    Why a full crown may

    not be an option for

    restoring a largeanterior fracture?

    Inadequate retention

    and resistance

    Remaining tooth structure

    following crown prep.

    Fractured Area

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    27/47

    Tooth Fracture - Posterior

    Treatment Options

    Indirect restoration is the most commonrestorative options for restoring fractured posteriorteeth.

    Different material/procedures are available; eachwith their own characteristic, advantages anddisadvantages: partial veneer restorations (gold,composite, porcelain, CAD/CAM); full veneerrestorations (gold, PFM, all porcelain).

    Choice should be based on patients preference(esthetic); dentist clinical judgment on what is the

    best restoration in a specific clinical situation.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    28/47

    Tooth Fracture - Posterior

    Treatment Options

    Repair -should not be overlooked asan option; e.g. Patient presents withfractured DL cusp on tooth #14, whichalready has an extensive amalgamcovering all the cusps except DL cusp.Patient cannot afford to have a crown.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    29/47

    Tooth Fracture - Posterior

    Treatment Options

    Direct restoration -when indirect restorationis not an option for financial reason. Materialof choice (amalgam vs composite) should be

    based on:Patients preferences (cost, esthetic)

    Conservation of tooth structure

    Clinical expertise of the dentist to manipulate the

    material in a specific clinical situationClinical properties of the material that will allow thedentist to restore the tooth to a more ideal form;e.g. amalgam will have an advantage over

    composite to establish proximal contact

    B i P i i l i D i i

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    30/47

    Basic Principles in Determining

    What Material/Procedure To UseThe basic principle should be centered around - Whatis the most conservative way to restore the tooth to itsoriginal (or as close to) biomechanical form.

    Some material needs bulk to resist fracture (e.g.amalgam, porcelain) - concern when dealing with atooth with short clinical crown length.

    Mode of retention - mechanical vs bonding; mechanicalretention need more tooth reduction - concern whendealing with a tooth with extensive structural damage.

    Bonding to sclerotic/secondary dentin is somewhatunpredictable

    Rely on bonding to provide resistance form (preventfracture of tooth structure) is somewhat unpredictable

    Isolation (for bonding) may be a concern for certainpatient and in the more posterior part of the mouth

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    31/47

    Other Considerations in Restoring a

    Fractured ToothA fractured tooth or a toothwith a large existing restorationmay need a foundationrestoration before a crown can

    be fabricated.The need for a foundationrestoration will depend on thedepth of the pulpal floor of theexisting restoration, and to a

    lesser extent the buccal-lingualwidth of the existing restoration.

    Retention of the crown willdepend on the amount of toothstructure left around the pulpal

    area.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    32/47

    What is your treatment

    recommendation?

    Mn first molar with an existing Class I

    amalgam restoration (pulpal depth of 2

    mm). Fractured ML cusp from mid

    MMR to Li groove area at the level of

    the pulpal floor.

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    33/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture (fracture line) -

    Treatment decision and Options

    Diagnosis

    patients complain

    Sensitivity on functionTreatment Options

    Direct bonded restoration

    Indirect bonded restoration

    Full veneer crown

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    34/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 11995

    cc LR occasionalsensitivity to chewing

    2002

    cc the sensitivity isgetting worst

    Dx - incomplete fractureon #30

    Tx - #30 full gold crown

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    35/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 12003

    cc no improvement, stillsensitive to chewing

    Dx - evidence of fractureline on DMR of #31

    Tx - DO composite

    2004Buccal fistula, gutta perchaused to trace the lesion tothe apex of the D root

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    36/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 1#31 extraction

    Final diagnosis - #31

    DMR fracture lineextended down onto theD root

    Prognosis -

    unrestorableComplete relieve ofsymptom following theextraction

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    37/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 2Undiagnosedfractured of theDMR extending to

    the apex of the Droot (#18)

    #19 (has anextensive MOD

    amalgamrestoration) - wascrowned along theway

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    38/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 3

    cc pain on chewing

    Dx - incompletetooth fracture onMMR and DMR

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    39/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 3Fracture lineextended onto the

    pulpal floor.Tx - porcelain inlayusing CAD/CAMtechnology

    Today - symptom isgone

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    40/47

    Incomplete Tooth Fracture

    Case Report 441-yo male with cc low gradeTA on LR

    No pathology found except 5mm pocket on M of #31. Patient

    is a bruxer with heavy wearfacets on all teeth. Prophy wasdone

    Report to the clinic the very nextday complaining the pain isbecoming more intense; painrelieved by drinking cold water

    Re-probe #31 and gettingprobing depth of at least 8 mm

    Careful exam reviewed afracture line on MMR

    Dx: Tooth fracture to apex of Mroot; confirmed by endodontist.Tooth was extracted

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    41/47

    Restoration Fracture/Incomplete Fracture

    Treatment decisions and Options

    Treatment decisions and options similar totooth fracture

    Try to identify the reason(s) for the fractureInadequate bulk - most common reason foramalgam restoration; need to correct thepreparation if amalgam is used again

    Exceeding the physical properties of the material -should consider alternative procedure/material

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    42/47

    Replacement Decisions

    Start out with the least invasive option;always ask yourself the question: will

    the proposed option improve thehealth of the tissue/oral health?

    Will the new restoration improve function/esthetics?Will the new restoration addresses the chiefcomplaint of the patient?

    Will the new restoration prevent further destructionof the surrounding hard/soft tissue

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    43/47

    Decision to repair/replace a cast gold restorationwith a perforation on the occlusal surface

    What rationale can you give to

    repair/replace a cast gold restorationwith a perforation on the occlusalsurface? (Assuming there is no

    complaint from patient and youcannot find a cement line)

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    44/47

    Existing Restoration - Clinical Status

    Secondary Caries

    Marginal Integrity

    marginal defect

    overhang

    open margin

    Contourproximal contact

    axial contour

    occlusion

    Biomechanical Form

    restoration fracture

    tooth fracture

    Esthetic

    patients esthetic

    concern

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    45/47

    Esthetic

    Status

    Poor color match

    Poor contour

    Diagnosis

    Should be based on patients complain

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    46/47

    Esthetic

    Replacement DecisionListen to patients REAL concern, try to understand

    EXACTLY what they want and expect

    Choose a procedure(s) that has the potential of

    matching patients expectation (end result vs patients

    ability to pay), and satisfy our criteria of conservation

    and optimal oral health following the procedure

    Important to understand the limitations of each of the

    esthetic procedure; match patients concern with thelimitations of the procedure in mind

  • 8/3/2019 09 Evaluation of Existing Restorations

    47/47

    EstheticTreatment Options

    Recontour - least invasive, limited to minor alternation

    Bleaching - non-invasive; unpredictable result;relatively inexpensive

    Composite Veneer - limited ability to mask dark stain;longevity; technically more challenging

    Porcelain Veneer - more invasive, limited ability tomast dark stain; more expensive; better esthetic

    Porcelain fused to metal crown - invasive, metal collarAll Porcelain crown - most invasive; most expensive;best color