ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of periodontal status between abutment and non-abutment teeth in patients with fixed dental prosthesis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe poor marginal adaptation, sub-gingival margin placement and over-contoured crowns can contribute to localized periodontal inflammation. Besides, lack of proper clinical expertise of the restorative dentist can result in the excessively deep subgingival margin placement and inconsistencies in the margins preparation. This can lead to loss of marginal integrity, poor adaptation of the crowns and eventually periodontal breakdown. The aim of the study was to compare the periodontal condition of abutment and non-abutment teeth in a group of Nepali adult patients with fixed dental prosthesis who visited the tertiary care hospital of Nepal.
methodsThis analytical cross-sectional study was conducted among 95 patients with fixed dental prosthesis visiting Department of Periodontics, T.U. Dental Teaching Hospital. Gingival index, plaque index, probing pocket depth and clinical attachment loss were recorded as clinical parameters in both abutment and contralateral matched non-abutment teeth. In descriptive statistical analyses, mean, median, standard deviation (SD), interquartile range (IQR), frequency and percentage were calculated depending upon the nature of data. The differences in the clinical parameters between the abutment and non-abutment teeth were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsThe abutment teeth had significantly higher plaque index (PI) scores (p < 0.001), gingival index (GI) scores (p < 0.001), increased probing depth (PD) (p < 0.001) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) (p < 0.001) than contralateral matched non-abutment teeth. The duration of prosthesis showed statistically significant difference in plaque index score (p = 0.026) and clinical attachment loss (p = 0.037) but no significant difference in gingival index score and probing pocket depth . Similarly, prosthetic materials used had significant difference in PI score ( p=0.004) and GI score (p = 0.036) but no significant difference in PD and CAL. However, the location of prosthetic margin had no significant effect on GI score, PI score, PD and CAL of abutment teeth.
conclusionsFixed dental prostheses may negatively influence periodontal status of abutment teeth, highlighting the need for periodic periodontal monitoring, patient education regarding oral hygiene and prosthetic quality control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.