Comparison of hard tissue interrelationships at the cervical region of teeth based on tooth type and gender difference

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Madhusudan Astekar
Prabhpreet Kaur
Nidhi Dhakar
Jappreet Singh

Abstract

Context: Cementoenamel junction (CEJ) represents the anatomic limit between the crown and root surface. With advancing age and continuous eruption, this area becomes exposed in the oral media. Consequently, CEJ will be subjected to the action of various physical and chemical factors that might alter its morphology, with the cementum being affected in most cases. Aim: To identify the frequency of hard tissue interrelationships present at the CEJ in relation to different genders, positions and aspects of tooth using a light microscope. Materials and Methods: The cervical regions of 80 permanent teeth (40 male and 40 female), extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons, were analyzed after longitudinal ground sections were made in the mesio-distal plane. The CEJ of the prepared sections was then studied and their frequencies were categorized as: cementum overlapping enamel, enamel overlapping cementum, edge-to-edge relationship and the presence of gap junctions. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test performed using SPSS 15 software. Results: Edge-to-edge contact of the cementum and enamel was most frequent, followed by gap junction and cementum overlapping the enamel, respectively. Chi-square test revealed no statistically significant differences with respect to the gender and tooth aspect, whereas the result was significant when the position of the tooth was studied. Conclusion: The observations of the study indicate a considerable morphological diversity in the anatomical pattern of CEJ. It can be concluded that the region should be protected against dentinal sensitivity, erosion, abrasion, abfraction and resorption, as it is more prone to cervical pathologies.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Madhusudan Astekar, Prabhpreet Kaur, Nidhi Dhakar, & Jappreet Singh. (2014). Comparison of hard tissue interrelationships at the cervical region of teeth based on tooth type and gender difference. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 6(2), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.132531

References

  1. Teodorovici P, Iovan G, Stoleriu S, Andrian S. On the ratio among tough dental tissues at cervical level on various groups of teeth. J Rom Med Dent 2010;14:198‑202.
  2. Francischone LA, Consolaro A. Morphology of the cementoenamel junction of primary teeth. J Dent Child (Chic) 2008;75:252‑9.
  3. Arambawatta K, Peiris R, Nanayakkara D. Morphology of the cemento‑enamel junction in premolar teeth. J Oral Sci 2009;51:623‑7.
  4. Schroeder HE, Scherle WF. Cemento‑enamel junction‑revisited. J Periodontal Res 1998;23:53‑9.
  5. Marshall SJ, Balooch M, Habelitz S, Balooch G, Gallagher R, Marshall GW. The dentin‑enamel junction‑a natural, multilevel interface. J Eur Ceram Soc 2003;23:2897‑904.
  6. Lin CP, Douglas WH. Structure‑property relations and crack resistance at the bovine dentin‑enamel junction. J Dent Res 1994;73:1072‑8.
  7. Zaslansky P, Friesem AA, Weiner S. Structure and mechanical properties of the soft zone separating bulk dentin and enamel in crowns of human teeth: Insight into tooth function. J Struct Biol 2006;153:188‑99.
  8. Ho SP, Yu B, Yun W, Marshall GW, Ryder MI, Marshall SJ. Structure, chemical composition and mechanical properties of human and rat cementum and its interface with root dentin. Acta Biomater 2009;5:707‑18.
  9. Grzesik WJ, Narayanan AS. Cementum and periodontal wound healing and regeneration. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2002;13:474‑84.
  10. Thorsen G. The gingival region of the tooth, and in particular the anatomical relation between the enamel and cementum. Dental Cosmos 1917;59:836.
  11. Bhaskar SN. Orban’s oral histology and embryology. Philadelphia: Mosby Incorporated; 1991.
  12. Nanci A. Ten Cate’s Oral Histology: Development, Structure, and Function. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2007.
  13. Berkovitz BK, Holland GR, Moxham B. Oral anatomy, embryology and histology. London: Mosby; 2002.
  14. Bevenius J, Lindskog S, Hultenby K. The amelocemental junction in young premolar teeth. A replica study by scanning electron microscopy. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:135‑42.
  15. Rose LF, Mealey BL, Genco R, Cohen D. Periodontics: Medicine, surgery, and implants. Philadelphia: St. Louis, Elsevier Mosby; 2004.
  16. Grossman ES, Hargreaves JA. Variable cementoenamel junction in one person. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:93‑7.
  17. Ceppi E, Dall›Oca S, Rimondini L, Pilloni A, Polimeni A. Cementoenamel junction of deciduous teeth: SEM‑morphology. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2006;7:131‑4.
  18. Leonardi R, Mazzone V, Loreto C, Caltabiano R, Caltabiano C, Viscuso O, et al. The amelocemental junction ultrastructure in primary teeth. A sem investigation. Ital J Anat Embryol 1995;100:11‑7.
  19. Neuvald L, Consolaro A. Cementoenamel junction: Microscopic analysis and external cervical resorption. J Endod 2000;26:503‑8.
  20. Birrer H. Zur Kenntnis der Schmelz‑Zement‑Zone des menschlichen Zahnes. Cells Tissues Organs Acta Anat (Basel) 1952;15:228‑42.