References

Jeffcoat MK, Howell TH. Alveolar bone destruction due to overhanging amalgam in periodontal disease. J.Periodontol. 1980; 51:599-602
Brunsvold MA, Jane JJ. The prevalence of overhangs in dental restorations and their relationship to periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17::67-72
Pack AR. The amalgam overhang dilemma: a review of causes and effects, prevention and removal. N Z Dent J. 1989; 85:55-58
Chan DCN, Chung AK-H. Management of idiopathic subgingival amalgam hypertrophy − the common amalgam overhang. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:753-758
Chapple ILC. Periodontal diagnosis and treatment − where does the future lie?. Periodontology 2000. 2009; 51:9-24
Smart GJ, Wilson M, Davies EH, Keiser JB. The assessment of ultrasonic root surface debridement by determination of residual endotoxin levels. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17::174-178

Technique tips: posterior temporary crowns: a freehand technique

From Volume 45, Issue 4, April 2018 | Pages 370-371

Authors

Richard Lilleker

BDS

Gwynne Dental, 41 Cliddesden Road, Basingstoke RG21 3EP, UK (richard@gwynnedental.co.uk)

Articles by Richard Lilleker

Article

I recently saw a patient who had four amalgam restorations. All had interproximal overhangs. Figure 1 presents the DPT radiograph, while Figures 2, 3 and 4 present close-ups of the four restorations, or is it five, as some seem to be joined. Although none had finger or thumb prints on the occlusal surfaces, I reckoned that they had each been placed using the ‘thumb technique’, a technique about which the excellent readers of Dental Update will be unaware. In this, the restorative material is pushed into a Class II cavity from the occlusal surface using a thumb or finger. Perhaps the clinician had missed dental school or had been asleep on the day that matrix band techniques were being taught!

Readers will, however, be aware of the dangers to the periodontal tissues which accrue from amalgam (or other materials') ledges. Most of the research on this was carried out some time ago, but it is worth highlighting the work of Jeffcoat and Howell1who compared, in a split mouth design study, 100 restorations with ledges and 100 contralateral teeth with no ledges. The results indicated that bone loss was greater on teeth with overhangs; the more severe the disease the greater the role of the overhang and small overhangs not resulting in bone loss. Other papers2,3 reported similar findings, even if Chan and Chung4 rather glorified the problem of overhangs by calling them amalgam hypertrophy! Calculus present on root surfaces could be considered to have a similar effect.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available