Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems

Background/purpose: Traditional classification systems to assess interdental papillary levels are based only on the vertical relationship among the papilla tip, contact point, and cementoenamel junction. However, the width of papilla recession (PR) is highly visible in terms of dental esthetics. A n...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Li-Ching Chang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2012-12-01
Series:Journal of Dental Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1991790212000864
id doaj-6f6650b1d6e546678d83fafbff8f8d34
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6f6650b1d6e546678d83fafbff8f8d342020-11-24T20:58:43ZengElsevierJournal of Dental Sciences1991-79022012-12-017437337810.1016/j.jds.2012.05.016Comparison between different papillary recession classification systemsLi-Ching ChangBackground/purpose: Traditional classification systems to assess interdental papillary levels are based only on the vertical relationship among the papilla tip, contact point, and cementoenamel junction. However, the width of papilla recession (PR) is highly visible in terms of dental esthetics. A new classification system is presented to assess central PR and compare differences between the new system and existing systems. Materials and methods: Thecentral papillawas visually assessed in 450 adults using standardized periapical radiographs of the maxillary central incisors. The PR classification system presented here is based on vertical and horizontal dimensions of the PR area. Central PR was classified according to the PR system and the system of Nordland and Tarnow (TC). Results: Ninety individuals who had no PRs were classified as degree 0 according to the classification of both TC and Chang. A total of 330 individuals (73.3%) were classified as TC I (Tarnow), and 46, 89, 16, and 183 participants were classified as PR I, PR II, PR III, and PR IV (Chang). Thirty individuals were classified as TC II, and all were classified as PR IV. Conclusion: This study confirmed a significant correlation between the two existing classification methods. The proposed PR classification system characterizes open embrasures in greater detail than previous systems.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1991790212000864classificationindexinterdental papillapapilla recessionradiography
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Li-Ching Chang
spellingShingle Li-Ching Chang
Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
Journal of Dental Sciences
classification
index
interdental papilla
papilla recession
radiography
author_facet Li-Ching Chang
author_sort Li-Ching Chang
title Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
title_short Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
title_full Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
title_fullStr Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
title_sort comparison between different papillary recession classification systems
publisher Elsevier
series Journal of Dental Sciences
issn 1991-7902
publishDate 2012-12-01
description Background/purpose: Traditional classification systems to assess interdental papillary levels are based only on the vertical relationship among the papilla tip, contact point, and cementoenamel junction. However, the width of papilla recession (PR) is highly visible in terms of dental esthetics. A new classification system is presented to assess central PR and compare differences between the new system and existing systems. Materials and methods: Thecentral papillawas visually assessed in 450 adults using standardized periapical radiographs of the maxillary central incisors. The PR classification system presented here is based on vertical and horizontal dimensions of the PR area. Central PR was classified according to the PR system and the system of Nordland and Tarnow (TC). Results: Ninety individuals who had no PRs were classified as degree 0 according to the classification of both TC and Chang. A total of 330 individuals (73.3%) were classified as TC I (Tarnow), and 46, 89, 16, and 183 participants were classified as PR I, PR II, PR III, and PR IV (Chang). Thirty individuals were classified as TC II, and all were classified as PR IV. Conclusion: This study confirmed a significant correlation between the two existing classification methods. The proposed PR classification system characterizes open embrasures in greater detail than previous systems.
topic classification
index
interdental papilla
papilla recession
radiography
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1991790212000864
work_keys_str_mv AT lichingchang comparisonbetweendifferentpapillaryrecessionclassificationsystems
_version_ 1716784918811377664