Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study

ABSTRACT Objectives The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the mesial and distal proximal enamel thickness available (PETa), (2) estimate the proximal enamel thickness remaining (PETr) on the basis of planned IPR, and (3) assess PETr‐associated risks with varying IPR amounts. Materials and Meth...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Enrique González‐García, Nasib Balut‐Chahin, Claudia Daniela Rojo‐Arce, María Eugenia Jiménez Corona, Luis Pablo Cruz‐Hervert, Jean Marc Retrouvey
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-02-01
Series:Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70083
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849306291079479296
author Enrique González‐García
Nasib Balut‐Chahin
Claudia Daniela Rojo‐Arce
María Eugenia Jiménez Corona
Luis Pablo Cruz‐Hervert
Jean Marc Retrouvey
author_facet Enrique González‐García
Nasib Balut‐Chahin
Claudia Daniela Rojo‐Arce
María Eugenia Jiménez Corona
Luis Pablo Cruz‐Hervert
Jean Marc Retrouvey
author_sort Enrique González‐García
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT Objectives The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the mesial and distal proximal enamel thickness available (PETa), (2) estimate the proximal enamel thickness remaining (PETr) on the basis of planned IPR, and (3) assess PETr‐associated risks with varying IPR amounts. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted using CBCT scans. PETa was estimated using on‐demand software. Mesial and distal PET were measured at the middle third of the crown. The means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the PETa and PETr data are reported. Differences between the mesial and distal PETa values were compared. Results A total of 1615 teeth were analyzed via CBCT. The mean PETa values ranged from 0.96 to 1.29 mm (mesial) and from 0.98 to 1.25 mm (distal). Differences between mesial and distal PETa were statistically significant, averaging 0.10 mm proximally (p < 0.050). In particular, these differences were observed in cuspids, including tooth 13 (1.18 ± 0.24 vs. 1.25 ± 0.28; p = 0.021), tooth 23 (1.25 ± 0.26 vs. 1.15 ± 0.28; p < 0.001), tooth 33 (1.22 ± 0.26 vs. 1.10 ± 0.23; p < 0.001), and tooth 43 (1.29 ± 0.24 vs. 1.13 ± 0.20; p < 0.001). The mean PETr values for single‐site IPRs < 0.4 mm were 0.58 mm (mesial) and 0.57 mm (distal). Exceeding a single‐site IPR of 0.20 mm significantly increased the proportion of interproximal sites classified as moderate or high risk, particularly in teeth with thinner enamel (< 0.7 mm). Conclusions PETa and PETr are critical for determining safe and individualized IPR. CBCT‐based PETa evaluations are strongly recommended when single‐site IPRs exceeding 0.20 mm are planned to increase precision and reduce the risk of excessive enamel reduction.
format Article
id doaj-art-404bb0efd7f14f609e6ef02dc6fba30d
institution Kabale University
issn 2057-4347
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
spelling doaj-art-404bb0efd7f14f609e6ef02dc6fba30d2025-08-20T03:55:08ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472025-02-01111n/an/a10.1002/cre2.70083Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based StudyEnrique González‐García0Nasib Balut‐Chahin1Claudia Daniela Rojo‐Arce2María Eugenia Jiménez Corona3Luis Pablo Cruz‐Hervert4Jean Marc Retrouvey5Department of Orthodontics Technological University of Mexico Mexico City MexicoDepartment of Orthodontics University of Valle Cali ColombiaPosgraduate and Research Studies Division, Dentistry Faculty National Autonomous University of Mexico México City MexicoPostgraduate and Research Studies Division, Dentistry Faculty National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico City MexicoPostgraduate and Research Studies Division, Dentistry Faculty National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico City MexicoBaylor College of Medicine Houston Texas USAABSTRACT Objectives The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the mesial and distal proximal enamel thickness available (PETa), (2) estimate the proximal enamel thickness remaining (PETr) on the basis of planned IPR, and (3) assess PETr‐associated risks with varying IPR amounts. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted using CBCT scans. PETa was estimated using on‐demand software. Mesial and distal PET were measured at the middle third of the crown. The means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the PETa and PETr data are reported. Differences between the mesial and distal PETa values were compared. Results A total of 1615 teeth were analyzed via CBCT. The mean PETa values ranged from 0.96 to 1.29 mm (mesial) and from 0.98 to 1.25 mm (distal). Differences between mesial and distal PETa were statistically significant, averaging 0.10 mm proximally (p < 0.050). In particular, these differences were observed in cuspids, including tooth 13 (1.18 ± 0.24 vs. 1.25 ± 0.28; p = 0.021), tooth 23 (1.25 ± 0.26 vs. 1.15 ± 0.28; p < 0.001), tooth 33 (1.22 ± 0.26 vs. 1.10 ± 0.23; p < 0.001), and tooth 43 (1.29 ± 0.24 vs. 1.13 ± 0.20; p < 0.001). The mean PETr values for single‐site IPRs < 0.4 mm were 0.58 mm (mesial) and 0.57 mm (distal). Exceeding a single‐site IPR of 0.20 mm significantly increased the proportion of interproximal sites classified as moderate or high risk, particularly in teeth with thinner enamel (< 0.7 mm). Conclusions PETa and PETr are critical for determining safe and individualized IPR. CBCT‐based PETa evaluations are strongly recommended when single‐site IPRs exceeding 0.20 mm are planned to increase precision and reduce the risk of excessive enamel reduction.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70083CBCTenamel availabilityenamel thicknessinterproximal reductionIPRPETa
spellingShingle Enrique González‐García
Nasib Balut‐Chahin
Claudia Daniela Rojo‐Arce
María Eugenia Jiménez Corona
Luis Pablo Cruz‐Hervert
Jean Marc Retrouvey
Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
CBCT
enamel availability
enamel thickness
interproximal reduction
IPR
PETa
title Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
title_full Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
title_fullStr Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
title_full_unstemmed Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
title_short Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT‐Based Study
title_sort assessing enamel thickness to estimate interproximal reduction a cbct based study
topic CBCT
enamel availability
enamel thickness
interproximal reduction
IPR
PETa
url https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70083
work_keys_str_mv AT enriquegonzalezgarcia assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy
AT nasibbalutchahin assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy
AT claudiadanielarojoarce assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy
AT mariaeugeniajimenezcorona assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy
AT luispablocruzhervert assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy
AT jeanmarcretrouvey assessingenamelthicknesstoestimateinterproximalreductionacbctbasedstudy