RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF OVERHANGING RESTORATIONS AMONG YEMENI PATIENTS USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CBCT)

Wahip Ahmed Ali Alsada'a; Mohsen Ali Al-Hamzi; Abdulwahab Ismail Al-Khawlani; Hassan Abdulwahab Al-Shamahy

doi:10.22270/ujpr.v8i5.1007

Wahip Ahmed Ali Alsada'a Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen.
Mohsen Ali Al-Hamzi Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen. Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Republic of Yemen.
Abdulwahab Ismail Al-Khawlani Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen.
Hassan Abdulwahab Al-Shamahy Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen. Department of Medical Microbiology and clinical immunology. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sana'a University, Republic of Yemen.

10.22270/ujpr.v8i5.1007

Keywords:

Class II restoration, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), crown restoration, overhang, Yemen

Abstract

Background and aims: Overhanging restorations which is extension of restorative material beyond the confines of a cavity preparation may lead to various complications and risks, including increased gingival fluid flow and oral inflammation. The study aim is to use cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to radiographically assess the incidence of overhanging restorations in Yemeni patients.

Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on 404 randomly selected CBCT images dor ≥ 18 years male and female Yemeni patients referred to private radiology centers in different Yemeni cities (i.e., Sana'a, Ibb, Hodeida, Aden and Hadhramout) during the period from January 2021 to June 2022. The overhang was evaluated regarding arch (upper or lower), side (right or left), tooth location, and tooth type (central incisor (I1), lateral incisor (I2), canine (C), 1^st premolar (P1), 2^nd premolar (P2), 1^st molar (M1), 2^nd molar (M2) and 3^rd molar (M3). The tooth surface was considered the statistical unit to allow an accurate comparison of periodontal variables for each restored surface. The evaluated surface points of class II restorations were mesial and distal, while those of crown restorations were mesial, distal, buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, mesiolingual, distobuccal, and distolingual.

Results: The prevalence rate of overhang was 59.8% in class II and 51.5% in crown restorations. Class II restoration overhang had no significant association with arch, side, tooth type, and tooth location; however, it had a significant association with tooth and surface point (p<0.05), indicating that it was more significantly observed in the 2^nd premolar (67.5%) than the other teeth as well as in the distal surface than the mesial one (73.1% vs. 26.9%, p<0.05

Conclusion: The prevalence of class II and crown restoration overhang is considered high among Yemeni patients. Overhangs observed on class II restorations are more than those observed on crown restorations. Class II restoration overhangs are more commonly observed on the 2^nd premolar as well as the distal surface.