Cervical Enamel Projections and Associated Pouch-Like Opening in Mandibular Furcations

Cervical enamel projections from a periodontal perspective: A scoping review

Cervical enamel projections (CEPs) represent a unique developmental and anatomical anomaly wherein the enamel structure extends apically beyond the cemento-enamel junction of the tooth. In this scoping review, the existing literature on CEPs was evaluated to delineate their characteristics, prevalence, predilection for specific teeth and surfaces, clinical significance, and management approaches. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Embase databases using the keywords "enamel projection(s)" or "ectopic enamel." In total, 24 studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the review. The prevalence of CEPs varied widely (8.3%-85.1%), predominantly manifesting as grade I or grade III. Mandibular first and second molars exhibited a higher incidence of CEPs, with a notable predilection for buccal surfaces. The consensus in most studies was that CEPs are associated with localized periodontal diseases. Recommendations inclined toward the removal of ectopic enamel during periodontal surgery to enhance periodontal attachment formation. However, decision-making should involve careful consideration of the benefits and drawbacks based on individual circumstances.

Dental prostheses and tooth-related factors

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes the current evidence about the role that the fabrication and presence of dental prostheses and tooth-related factors have on the initiation and progression of gingivitis and periodontitis.

FINDINGS

Placement of restoration margins within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with gingival inflammation and, potentially, recession. The presence of fixed prostheses finish lines within the gingival sulcus or the wearing of partial, removable dental prostheses does not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. However, hypersensitivity reactions to the prosthesis dental material can be present. Procedures adopted for the fabrication of dental restorations and fixed prostheses have the potential to cause traumatic loss of periodontal supporting tissues. Tooth anatomic factors, root abnormalities, and fractures can act as plaque-retentive factors and increase the likelihood of gingivitis and periodontitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth anatomic factors, such as root abnormalities and fractures, and tooth relationships in the dental arch and with the opposing dentition can enhance plaque retention. Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. Tooth-supported and/or tooth-retained restorations and their design, fabrication, delivery, and materials have often been associated with plaque retention and loss of attachment. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials. Restoration margins placed within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with inflammation and, potentially, recession. However, the evidence in several of the reviewed areas, especially related to the biologic mechanisms by which these factors affect the periodontium, is not conclusive. This highlights the need for additional well-controlled animal studies to elucidate biologic mechanisms, as well as longitudinal prospective human trials. Adequate periodontal assessment and treatment, appropriate instructions, and motivation in self-performed plaque control and compliance to maintenance protocols appear to be the most important factors to limit or avoid potential negative effects on the periodontium caused by fixed and removable prostheses.

Dental prostheses and tooth-related factors

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes the current evidence about the role that the fabrication and presence of dental prostheses and tooth-related factors have on the initiation and progression of gingivitis and periodontitis.

FINDINGS

Placement of restoration margins within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with gingival inflammation and, potentially, recession. The presence of fixed prostheses finish lines within the gingival sulcus or the wearing of partial, removable dental prostheses does not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. However, hypersensitivity reactions to the prosthesis dental material can be present. Procedures adopted for the fabrication of dental restorations and fixed prostheses have the potential to cause traumatic loss of periodontal supporting tissues. Tooth anatomic factors, root abnormalities, and fractures can act as plaque-retentive factors and increase the likelihood of gingivitis and periodontitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth anatomic factors, such as root abnormalities and fractures, and tooth relationships in the dental arch and with the opposing dentition can enhance plaque retention. Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance. Tooth-supported and/or tooth-retained restorations and their design, fabrication, delivery, and materials have often been associated with plaque retention and loss of attachment. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials. Restoration margins placed within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with inflammation and, potentially, recession. However, the evidence in several of the reviewed areas, especially related to the biologic mechanisms by which these factors affect the periodontium, is not conclusive. This highlights the need for additional well-controlled animal studies to elucidate biologic mechanisms, as well as longitudinal prospective human trials. Adequate periodontal assessment and treatment, appropriate instructions, and motivation in self-performed plaque control and compliance to maintenance protocols appear to be the most important factors to limit or avoid potential negative effects on the periodontium caused by fixed and removable prostheses.

Characteristics of the molar surface after removal of cervical enamel projections: comparison of three different rotating instruments

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare tooth surface characteristics in extracted human molars after cervical enamel projections (CEPs) were removed with the use of three rotating instruments.

Methods

We classified 60 extracted molars due to periodontal lesion with CEPs into grade I, II, or III, according to the Masters and Hoskins’ criteria. Each group contained 20 specimens. Three rotating instruments were used to remove the CEPs: a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler, a periodontal bur, and a diamond bur. Tooth surface characteristics before and after removal of the projections were then evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We analyzed the characteristics of the tooth surfaces with respect to roughness and whether the enamel projections had been completely removed.

Results

In SEM images, surfaces treated with the diamond bur were smoothest, but this instrument caused considerable harm to tooth structures near the CEPs. The piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler group produced the roughest surface but caused less harm to the tooth structure near the furcation. In general, the surfaces treated with the periodontal bur were smoother than those treated with the ultrasonic scaler, and the periodontal bur did not invade adjacent tooth structures.

Conclusions

For removal of grade II CEPs, the most effective instrument was the diamond bur. However, in removing grade III projections, the diamond bur can destroy both adjacent tooth structures and the periodontal apparatus. In such cases, careful use of the periodontal bur may be an appropriate substitute.

Unanswered Questions: Can Bone Lost from Furcations Be Regenerated?

Periodontal regeneration-treatment that results in new alveolar bone, cementum, and a functional periodontal ligament-is successful in class II furcation defects. This article examines one aspect of periodontal regeneration-alveolar bone growth in furcation defects-in trying to answer the question, Can bone lost from furcations be regenerated? The best evidence for bone growth is histology but there is limited histologic evidence for bone growth in human furcation defects. There is more evidence from intraoperative measurements for hard tissue growth in treated furcation defects, but the nature of the hard tissue needs to be determined histologically.