Gingival Health of Porcelain Laminate Veneered Teeth: A Retrospective Assessment

Statement of Problem: The long-term effect of the presence of porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs) on the health of the surrounding gingival issues is not available in the restorative literature. Purpose: To assess the long-term effect of PLVs on the health of the surrounding gingival tissues. A secondary aim was to correlate gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) scores with clinical parameters used for gingival health assessment in teeth treated with PLVs. Methods and Materials: Patients who received PLVs placed at the Graduate Restorative Clinic within a seven- to 14-year period were recalled for clinical evaluations. Periodontal measurements including gingival index (GI), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured using a standard probe and indices. Gingival Crevicular Fluid (GCF) was measured with a Periotron machine (Periotron 8000, Oraflow Inc), using Periopaper (Periopaper Gingival Fluid Collection Strip, Oraflow Inc.) for fluid collection. Photographs of any observed clinical defect were taken. Data were tabulated using Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp). Statistical analysis for all descriptive statistics was performed using SPSS 21 (SPSS Software, IBM Corp.) and Stata SE 13 (Stata Software, StataCorp). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to test for statistical significance of the mean pocket depths between the restored and unrestored surfaces of the veneered teeth. The significance level for all tests was p <0.05. Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed for testing statistical significance between GCF and GI and between GCF and PPD. Results: The frequency distribution of the GI included 47 PLVs (43%) with normal gingiva, 16 (15%) with mild inflammation, and 46 (42%) with moderate inflammation and bleeding on probing. The average PPD on the facial surface of the maxillary and mandibular PLVs was 2.17 mm and 2.16 mm, respectively. On the lingual surface, the average PPD was 2.10 mm for maxillary and 2.22 mm for mandibular PLVs. Gingival recession was seen in 27% of the evaluated PLVs. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed p>0.136, showing no statistical difference in the mean pocket depths between restored facial and unrestored lingual surfaces of the veneered teeth. A moderate correlation (r=0.407) was found between GCF and GI, which was significant at p<0.001. No correlation (r=0.124) was found between GCF and PPD, which was not significant at p=0.197. Conclusions: Gingival response to the evaluated PLVs was in the satisfactory range, with overall GI scores ranging between normal and moderate inflammation, pocket depths ranging from 1 to 2 mm, and recession present in 27% of the evaluated PLVs. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean pocket depths of the restored and unrestored surfaces of veneered teeth (p>0.136). A moderate correlation was found between GCF and GI.