Author(s):
Amaweya Abdulrahman Al-Sammarraie, Ayyam Khalid Abdulkareem, Hadeel Rateb AlAridi, Rahel Fayez Hammad, Duaa Yousef Shehadeh
Email(s):
amawyaab@hotmail.com , a.khalid@ajman.ac.ae , hadeelra@hotmail.com , rahelhammad@yahoo.com , du3a2.yyousef@gmail.com
DOI:
10.52711/0974-360X.2021.01106 
Address:
Amaweya Abdulrahman Al-Sammarraie1, Ayyam Khalid Abdulkareem2, Hadeel Rateb AlAridi3, Rahel Fayez Hammad3, Duaa Yousef Shehadeh3
1Lecturer Department of Clinical Science Ajman University, Faculty of Dentistry, Ajman United Arab Emirates.
2Lecturer Department of Basic Science and Biology, Ajman University, Faculty of Dentistry, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
3General Dental Practitioner Ajman University.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 14,
Issue - 12,
Year - 2021
ABSTRACT:
The objective of this study was to measure the buccolingual and mesiodistal convergence angles of six typodont teeth (# 26, 36, 45, 15, 21, and 13), prepared by preclinical dental students at Ajman University, for porcelain fused to a metal full crown and to compare them with the recommended convergence angle (6.5°). Additionally, we sought to compare the angles recorded for the six sets of teeth and relate the results according to the tooth position and surface and to know which one shows the greater tendency of straying from the normal convergence angle. Materials and methods: The angle of convergence of one hundred ninety-eight typodont teeth preparations was measured both buccolingually and mesiodistally by using a Dino-lite pro digital microscope (AM-413ZT Taiwan) with a Dinocapture (2.0 version 1.5.27.A, AnMo Electronics Corporation). All the results were recorded, and the data were analyzed by means of a one-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA. Results: The mean total convergence angle for this study was 11.29°± 6.66° from both surfaces, which is greater than the recommended value of 6.5° and statistically significant (p<0.000). Only 7.07% of teeth met the ideal convergence angle from both surfaces, and the one-sample test showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.057) from the recommended convergence angle, except for the mesiodistal convergence angle of the lower-right second premolar, which revealed no significant difference. The mean convergence angle for the buccolingual surface was 12.42°± 6.16°, which was higher than that of the mesiodistal surface (10.16°± 7°). One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference between all selected teeth (p<0.000), and a paired samples t-test showed a significant difference within two teeth only, the lower-right second premolar and upper-right canine (p<0.000), in which the mesiodistal measurement showed a lower convergence angle than the buccolingual angle. Conclusions: Preclinical students prepared teeth with a convergence angle higher than the recommended convergence angle. However, all the recorded angles were within the range of previous studies. It was concluded that the recommended convergence angle was difficult to achieve in preclinical practice.
Cite this article:
Amaweya Abdulrahman Al-Sammarraie, Ayyam Khalid Abdulkareem, Hadeel Rateb AlAridi, Rahel Fayez Hammad, Duaa Yousef Shehadeh. Assessment of the convergence angle of teeth prepared for full crown by preclinical dental students. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(12):6399-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.01106
Cite(Electronic):
Amaweya Abdulrahman Al-Sammarraie, Ayyam Khalid Abdulkareem, Hadeel Rateb AlAridi, Rahel Fayez Hammad, Duaa Yousef Shehadeh. Assessment of the convergence angle of teeth prepared for full crown by preclinical dental students. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(12):6399-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.01106 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2021-14-12-36
REFERENCES:
1. Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Stone SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc; 2012. p. 222-227
2. Stephen Rosenstiel, Martin Land, Junhei Fujimoto. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics 5th Edition 2016. P. 173, 188
3. The glossary of prosthodontic terms; Ninth Edition. J Prosthetic Dent 2017 Academy of Prosthodontics The glossary of prosthodontics terms 9th edition. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017; 117 p. 25
4. Ayad MF, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF. Influence of tooth preparation taper and cement type on recementation strength of complete metal crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102(6):354–61.
5. Bowley, J. F., Kaye, E. K., and Garcia, R. I. Theoretical axial wall angulation for rotational resistance form in an experimental-fixed partial denture. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2017; 9(4), 278–286
6. Goodacre C J, Campagni W V, Aquilino S A. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: An art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 363–376.
7. Rafeek R N, Smith WA, Seymour K G, Zou L F, Sama-rawickrama D Y. Taper of full-veneer crown preparations by dental students at the University of the West Indies. J Prosthodont. 2010; 19: 580–585.
8. Ayad MF, Maghrabi AA, Rosenstiel SF. Assessment of convergence angles of tooth preparations for complete crowns among dental students. J Dent. 2005;33(8):633-8.
9. Marghalani TY. Convergence angles of metal ceramic crowns prepared by dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:1250-6.
10. Prath A.A. and Jain A. R. Attitude and Practice on Laminate Veneer Preparations among Dental Practitioners. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2017 10(6): 1687- 1690
11. Yoon SS, Cheong C, Preisser J, Jun S, Chang BM, Wright RF. Measurement of total occlusal convergence of 3 different tooth preparations in 4 different planes by dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):285–292
12. Tiu J, Lin T, Al-Amleh B, et al: Convergence angles and margin widths of tooth preparations by New Zealand dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:74-79
13. Kenneth J. Strain, James Mackie, Stephen J. Bonsor, Tatiana V. Macfarlane. Crown taper angles achieved by dental students: a systematic review. J Dent Educ. 2018;82(11):1203-1
14. Annerstedt A., Engstrom U, Hansson A, et al. Axial wall convergence of full veneer crown preparations: documented for dental students and general practitioners. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996; 52(2):109-12.
15. Aleisa K, Al-Dwairi Z N, Alwazzan K, Al-Moither M, Al-Shammari M, Lynch E. Convergence angles of clinical tooth preparations achieved by dental students at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. J Dent Educ. 2013; 77: 1154–1158.
16. Al-Omari WM, Al-Wahadni AM. Convergence angle, occlusal reduction, and finish line depth of full-crown preparations made by dental students. Quintessence Int. 2004; 35: 287 93.
17. Noonan JE Jr, Goldfogel MH. Convergence of axial walls of full veneer crown preparations in a dental school environment. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66:706-8.
18. Shankar S. and Gounder R. Standards of teeth preparation for anterior reszin bonded all- ceramic crowns in private dental practice in South India. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020;13: 1127-1130
19. Nordlander J, Wei D, Stoffer W, Ochi S. The taper of clinical preparations for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 60(2): 148-51.
20. Kent WA, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. Taper of clinical preparations for cast restorations. Quintessence Int. 1988; 19: 339-45.
21. Smith, C.T., Gary, J.J., Conkin, J.E. and Franks, H.L. (1999) Effective taper criterion for the full veneer crown preparation in preclinical prosthodontics. Journal of Prosthodontics. 8, 196-200.
22. S. S. Virdee, L.D. Addy, P.J. Milward and C.D Lynch. Convergence angles for full veneer crown preparation completed by undergraduate students in a dental teaching hospital. Br Dent J. 2018; 224:641-5.
23. Leempoel PJB, Lemmens PH, Snoek PA, Van’t Hof MA. The convergence angle of tooth preparations for complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58(4): 414-6.
24. Mack PJ. A theoretical and clinical investigation into the taper achieved on crown and inlay preparations. J Oral Rehabil. 1980; 7: 255–265
25. Ahmed Aziz and Omar El-Mowafy. Convergence Angle of Preparations for Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic Crowns by Dental Students and Its Effect on Crown Retention: J Dent Educ. 2020; 84(3):329-335.
26. El-Mubarak N, Abu-Bakr N, Omer O, Ibrahim Y. Assessment of undergraduate students’ tooth preparation for full veneer cast restorations. Open J Stomatatol. 2014; 4: 43–48.
27. Fahad Abdulla, Hassan Khamis , Alexander Milosevic , Moosa Abuzayda. Convergence angles of all-ceramic full crown preparations performed in Dubai private practice. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10 (12): 1192-7
28. Sivakumar P. and Naseem I. Biosmart Materials the future of Dentistry: A Review 2016 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 9(10): 1737- 1742
29. Mays KA, Crisp HA, Vos P. Utilizing CAD/CAM to measure total occlusal convergence of preclinical dental students’ crown preparations. J Dent Educ. 2016; 80 (1):100-7.
30. Park CF, Sheinbaum JM, Tamada Y, . Dental students’ perceptions of digital assessment software for preclinical tooth preparation exercises. J Dent Educ. 2017;81(5): 597-603
31. Miyazono, S.; Shinozaki, Y.; Sato, H.; Isshi, K.; Yamashita, J. Use of Digital Technology to Improve Objective and Reliable Assessment in Dental Student Simulation Laboratories. J. Dent. Educ. 2019; 83, 1224–
32. Ssneha B. Application of Nanotechnology in Dentistry. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2014; 7(1): 81-83