journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Original article

Periodontal and prosthetic outcomes on teeth prepared with

biologically oriented preparation technique: a 4-year follow-up
prospective clinical study
Blanca Serra-Pastora , Ignazio Loib , Antonio Fons-Fontc, M. Fernanda Solá-Ruíza,c ,
Rubén Agustín-Panaderoa,*
a
Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia University, Valencia, Spain
b
Private Practice, Cagliari, Italy
c
Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia University, Valencia, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Purpose: To evaluate the clinicaland biological behavior of full coverage restorations on teeth prepared
Received 24 July 2018 without finish line during a 4-year follow-up.
Received in revised form 15 March 2019 Methods: This prospective study included 149 teeth treated using biologically oriented preparation
Accepted 18 March 2019
technique (BOPT). The sample (149 teeth) was divided into two groups: Seventy four teeth restored with
Available online 8 April 2019
crowns, and 75 teeth supporting fixed partial dentures (FPD). Restorations were fabricated with
zirconium oxide cores and ceramic coverings. Patients attended regular annual check-ups when probe
Keywords:
depth, presence of inflammation with bleeding on probing, presence of plaque, gingival thickness,
BOPT
dental preparation
marginal stability, biological or mechanical complications, and the patient’s level of satisfaction were
dental crown registered over a 4-year follow-up.
zirconia Results: After the 4-year follow-up, 2.1% of teeth underwent increases in probing depth; 12% of the sample
periodontal health presented inflammation and bleeding on probing; 20% of the restored teeth presented plaque; gingival
thickening increased a 32.5%; 98.6% of teeth presented marginal stability; the restoration survival rate
was 96.6%, with 2% of biological complications and 1.4% of mechanical complications. General
satisfaction score was 80.73.
Conclusions: Restorations placed on teeth prepared using BOPT present good periodontal behavior,
increase of gingival thickening, and marginal stability over a 4-year follow-up. High survival rates after
4 years show that the technique produces predictable outcomes.
Clinical significance: The BOPT technique is a good treatment option in cases where replacement of an old
restoration is required; presenting good periodontal behavior, gingival thickening, and marginal stability.
© 2019 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction effects produced during dental preparation or as a result of poor

A healthy relationship between dental restorations and the
periodontium is of prime importance for the clinical longevity and
esthetic harmony of full coverage restorations [1,2].
One of the most common complications, derived from fixed
prostheses is gingival recession, which constitutes an important
clinical concern. This problem is largely associated with iatrogenic
* Corresponding author at: Departamento de Prótesis, Facultad de Odontología,
Universidad de Valencia, Clínicas Odontológicas, Gascó Oliag 1, 46010, Valencia,
Spain.
E-mail addresses: blanca.serrapastor@gmail.com (B. Serra-Pastor),
loi.ig@tiscali.it (I. Loi), antonio.fons@uv.es (A. Fons-Font), m.fernanda.sola@uv.es
(M. F. Solá-Ruíz), rubenagustinpanadero@gmail.com (R. Agustín-Panadero).
prosthetic fit; it will compromise esthetics, and so is particularly
detrimental in the anterior region [3–8].
Dental preparation for fixed prostheses can take various forms
classified as horizontal preparation with a defined margin
(chamfer), or vertical, or feather-edge, without a margin/finish
line [6,9,10].
Subgingival horizontal preparations have been conventionally
indicated in cases of aesthetic demand; however, they have been
related to adverse periodontal reactions, such as inflammation,
bleeding, deeper probing and recession [11–13].
Loi described in 2013 [6] the biologically oriented preparation
technique (BOPT); which is a vertical preparation and consists of
the elimination of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) so that
the prosthesis creates a new crown emergence that imitates the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.03.006
1883-1958/ © 2019 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
416 B. Serra-Pastor et al. / journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420

natural tooth [6,14–17]. According to clinical reports, [6,15–17], the

technique produces increases in gingival thickness and greater
stability of the gingival margin (less chance of suffering
recessions). In addition, vertical preparation is characterized by
being more conservative with dental structure (especially peri-
odontal teeth), taking impressions is easier (since it is a finish area
and not a defined line), and they are also associated with a good
marginal fit [18–20].
Unfortunately, there is insufficient scientific evidence in
support of BOPT, which highlights the need for medium- to
long-term longitudinal clinical trials.
Fig. 1. Prosthetic treatment needed to be replaced due to biological and esthetic
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical behavior over a problem.
four-year follow-up of restorations placed on teeth prepared
without finish line, monitoring periodontal status as well as the
prostheses themselves in order to assess stability and treatment
predictability.

2. Materials and methods

A patient sample was selected from among patients attending

the clinic at the Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine
and Dentistry, University of Valencia (Spain), treated between
January 2013 and January 2014. Inclusion criteria were as follows:
adult patients (aged over 18 years), non-smokers, periodontally
healthy or periodontally managed, patients who had undergone
restoration with fixed prostheses (one-piece crowns or fixed
partial dentures FPDs) in the aesthetic zone (incisors, canines,
premolars, first molars), which needed to be replaced due to
biological, esthetic or some other type of problem (Fig. 1). Patients
who were smokers, presented unmanaged parafunctional habits,
or severe systemic diseases were excluded.
The trial was approved by the University of Valencia Ethics
Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (Registration
Number: H1448361523684). All patients gave their informed
consent to take part in the trial, signing an informed consent form.
The sample consisted of 52 patients, 22 men and 30 women. A
total of 101 treatments were carried out (74 crowns and 27 FPD)
and thereafter monitored annually during a 4-year follow-up.
Fig. 2. (a) Teeth prepared with conventional chamfer. Vestibular view. (b) Teeth
Patients were divided into two groups corresponding to the type of prepared with conventional chamfer. Occlusal view.
treatment they received, one-piece crowns or 3-6-piece FPDs, and
were analyzed both individually and as groups. To make the
analysis of FPDs comparable with crown analysis, each restored
tooth was analyzed individually.
Before treatment, patients who needed underwent periodontal
maintenance treatment to obtain optimal gingival health. Patients
who did not require periodontal treatment underwent conven-
tional oral hygiene with ultrasound. Oral hygiene instructions were
given to all patients.
Dental preparation, provisionalization, and laboratory phases,
were performed following the simplified BOPT guidelines de-
scribed by Agustín and Solá [14]; and everything was done by the
same prosthodontist (specialist, trained in BOPT technique). Before
the removal of the old restorations a double probing (gingival
Fig. 3. BOPT preparation technique. From left to right: First step introduce the bur
sulcus probing and bone probing) was performed to determine the with an angulation of 10-15 with respect to the dental axis (tip of the bur in the
preparation limit and to situate the location of the provisional direction of the tooth); second step, introduce the bur parallel to the dental axis;
restoration (0.5–0.8 mm below the edge of the gingiva) so as not to and third last step, introduce the bur with a 3-6 angulation with respect to the
invade the biological space at any time. After the removal of the old dental axis.
restorations (Fig. 1), BOPT preparation eliminated the pre-existing
finish line (situated supragingival) (Fig. 2a and b) using a turbine introduced parallel to the dental axis, in order to eliminate the
and 100/200 mm cone diamond bur of 1.2 mm diameter preexisting finish line. In the third and last step, the bur was
(862.534.012, BOPT drills; Sweden & Martina, Due Carrere, Padua, introduced with a 3–6 angulation with respect to the dental axis
Italy). For the realization of the BOPT preparation technique, the to give it the necessary convergence (Figs. 3 and 4). Afterwards an
bur was first introduced with an angulation of 10–15 with respect interim prosthesis was fabricated with self-polymerizing acrylic
to the dental axis (tip of the bur in the direction of the tooth). This resin (Sintodent, Sintodent s.r.l., Roma Italy). The interim
first step aims to open the dental groove, and eliminate de prosthesis creates a new cement-enamel-prosthetic junction,
emergence of the anatomic crown. In the second step, the bur was situated in the gingival sulcus at a depth of 0.5–0.8 mm, with
 B. Serra-Pastor et al. / journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420
Fig. 4. BOPT technique, immediately after preparation.
Fig. 5. (a) Maturation of gingival tissue after a provisional phase of 8–12 weeks. (b)
Gingival sulcus in teeth prepared with BOPT. (c) Emergence profile with BOPT
provisional restoration.
Fig. 6. Final prostheses with BOPT technique.
consideration of the biological width. Interim restorations were
not removed until the soft tissues had completely matured – a
period of 8–12 weeks (Fig. 5a, b, and c). At this point, impressions
were taken to fabricate the definitive prosthesis using the two-step
impression technique, placing double gingival retraction cord to
prevent gingival collapse.
The definitive restorations were fabricated with a zirconia core
(Lava Frame Zirconia, 3M Espe, Seefeld, Germany) and feldspathic
ceramic covering (Lava Ceram, 3M Espe,) applied in layers with a
stratification technique. All restorations were cemented with
temporary cement (Temp Bond Clear, Kerr Dental, Orange, CA,
USA) during the first 2 months. After this time, restorations were
cemented with glass ionomer cement (Ketac Cem, 3M Espe)
(Fig. 6).
2.1. Clinical follow-up
A protocol was established whereby patients were evaluated
before treatment (BT) and after placement of the definitive
prosthesis; thereafter, annual check-ups were scheduled for
417
Fig. 7. Measurement of the gingival thickness with a transparent split and a
periodontal probe with a rubber stop, 2 mm above the gingival margin.
4 years: initial situation after placement of the definitive prosthesis
(T0), 1 year after treatment (T1), 2 years (T2), 3 years (T3), and
4 years (T4). Patients undergoing periodontal treatment (peri-
odontal revisions and maintenance, as well as oral hygiene)
continued to attend their regular maintenance appointments,
independently of appointments for review of prosthetic treatment.
The following parameters were evaluated: presence or absence
of plaque by means of visual inspection with a conventional dental
exploratory probe (Hu-Friedy EPD6578XTS, Hu-Friedy, Chicago,
ILL, USA); periodontal probing depth around each tooth using a
millimeter-calibrated periodontal probe (Hu-Friedy PCPUNC156),
presence or absence of gingival inflammation with bleeding by
means of visual inspection, biological or mechanical complica-
tions, and the patient’s level of satisfaction with treatment
assessed by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS). Gingival
thickness was measured and marginal stability (presence of
gingival recession) was monitored over time. The thickness of
the gum around each tooth was measured using a transparent
splint with an aperture situated 2 mm below the vestibular
gingival margin using a millimeter-calibrated periodontal probe
(Hu-Friedy PCPUNC156) (Fig. 7) [17]. Marginal stability was
evaluated by measuring the distance in millimeters (mm) from
the new prosthetic cemento-enamel junction (PCEJ) to the edge of
the gingival margin using a periodontal probe. Marginal stability
was carried out once the definitive BOPT prosthesis was placed
(T0), but gingival thickness was first measured with the old
restorations before treatment (BT). The evaluation was carried out
in each follow-up revision (T1-T2-T3-T4).
2.2. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was made with SPSS 21.0 (for descriptive
analysis) and R 3.5.1 for inferential (R Core Team (2018) R, Austria). It
was found that the thickness and the recession are not distributed
according to the normal pattern (Kolmogorov-Smirnov); but the size
of the sample (n = 144) allowed us to approach the analysis using a
parametric approach.
The gingival thickness and the recession in mm were the
dependent variables in both linear regression models as a function
of the time of revision and type of prosthesis. The regression was
estimated from generalized estimation equation models (GEE) to
control the intra-subject correlation because each patient contrib-
utes several teeth to the investigation. The Bonferroni correction
was applied to multiple comparisons.
The binary variables, inflammation and bleeding, are studied
with logistic regression, also using GEE methodology and for the
same reason above.
418 B. Serra-Pastor et al. / journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420

Table 1. Results of all the measured parameters during 4-year follow-up

Clinical results
T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Statistical significance Differences
Crowns-FPD
Presence of No 38,9 38,9 21,45 20,1 YES NO
Plaque % (p < 0001) (p = 0757)
ATS test Brunner–Langer model
Increasing No No 0,7 1,4 2,1 NO NO
Probing depth % (p = 0135) (p = 0445)
ATS test Brunner–Langer model
Presence of Inflammation- bleeding % No 6,3 19,5 13,3 12 YES (p < 0001) NO
Chi2 Wald test GEE model (p = 0153)
Gingival thickness 1,20a 1,44 1,59 1,59 1,59 YES (p < 0001) NO
(mm) Chi2 Wald test GEE model (p = 0419)
Variations in gingival margin stability % no No no 1,4 1,4 NO NO
(p = 0154) (p = 0145)
ATS test Brunner–Langer model
Mechanical and biological complications % No No 2 3,4 3,4 NO NO
(p = 0167) (p = 0274)
ATS test Brunner–Langer model
a
Measures before treatment (BT) for gingival thickness.

For other ordinals (plaque, probing) or binaries with no or very
little incidence (pulpitis, extraction, failure . . . ) a Brunner-Langer
nonparametric model was used for longitudinal data with
independent factor type of prosthesis.
The level of reference significance was 5% (p < 0.05) and the
power achieved with the study was 85% for an average effect size.
3. Results
A sample of 52 patients were selected (22 men, 30 women),
aged between 18 and 65 years. A total of 74 crowns and 27 FPDs
were used to restore teeth and evaluated over a 4-year follow-up.
Of the 52 patients, one patient was lost due to failure to attend the
third year follow-up; so the final sample at 4 year was 144 teeth in
the aesthetic zone (incisors, canines, premolars, first molars) (71
teeth supporting crowns and 73 teeth supporting FPDs).
After analyzing the plaque data obtained, 38.9% of the restored
teeth presented plaque after T1 and T2, which then decreased to
21.45% and 20.1% in T3 and T4 consecutively, this decrease was
statistically significant (p < 0.001). The decrease in plaque was
more evident in the group of crowns than FPDs although without
significant difference between the two restoration types
(p = 0.757).
With regard to probing depth, in T0, all teeth had a probing
between 0–3 mm. In T1 no teeth presented variations; only 0.7% of
teeth suffered an increase (from 0 to 3 mm to 3–6 mm) in probing
depth in T2; during T3, probing depth data increased in the 1.4% of
the sample, and at T4, probing depth had increased in 2.1% of teeth.
The overall increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.135). No
differences between crowns and FPDs were found for this
parameter (p = 0.445).
Inflammation with presence of bleeding was observed in 6,3%
of the sample in T1; increasing in T2 to 19.5% of teeth. In T3 and
T4 there was a decrease with results of 13.3% and 12%
respectively. Statistical analysis confirms significant variation
in inflammation over time (p = 0.001). Nor were any significant
differences identified between the two types of prosthesis
(p = 0.153).
In the measurement of the gingival thickness before treatment
(BT) and after the treatment (T1-T4), there were findings of great
interest. In the measurement of the gingival thickness BT, values
between 0.5 and 2.5 mm were found. 71% of the patients had a BT
thickness between 0.5–1 mm (thin gingival thickness), 27% a BT
thickness between 1–2 mm (average gingival thickness), and 2% a
BT thickness of more than 2 mm (thick gingival thickness).
Teeth restored with crowns presented a gingival thickness BT of
1.26  0.48 mm, which increased to 1.52  0.52 mm at T1 and to
1.67  0.58 mm in T2. In T3 and T4 remained stable with 1.7  0.59.
For teeth supporting FPDs, gingival thickness BT was
1.14  0.42 mm, also increasing at T1 and T2 to 1.36  0.36 mm
and 1.52  0.43 mm respectively. In T3 there was a small decrease
to 1.49  0.41 mm, remaining stable during T4. For all 144 teeth,
mean gingival thickness BT was 1.20  0.46 mm, increasing to
1.44  0.45 in T1 and 1.59  0.52 in T2. In T3 and T4 the measures
remained stable. The overall increase in gingival thickness was
statistically significant (p < 0.001) and it was evident that the most
relevant change was produced during the first year after
restoration in both groups (p < 0.001). After the second year,
mean thickness did not change (p = 1.000). Teeth restored with
crowns presented a slightly larger increase in thickness than teeth
supporting FPDs, but without significant difference between the
treatment types (p = 0.419).
As for gingival margin stability, an important finding was that
at the end of the 4-year follow-up, 98.6% of the restored
teeth remained stable without recessions. At T1 and T2 neither
teeth bearing crowns nor teeth supporting FPDs presented
recessions, but in T3 two teeth restored with crowns presented
recessions of 0.5 mm and 1 mm; although these data were not
statistically significant (p = 0.154).
With regard to the success and survival of the restorations, 2%
suffered biological complications at T2, 2 cases of pulpitis and 1
extraction due to vertical fracture; during T3 year 1.4% suffered
mechanical complications consisting of 2 restoration fractures
(chipping of the veneering porcelain and a connector fracture in
one FPD). No complications occurred during T4. The overall success
rate was 96.6% (Table 1).
The level of satisfaction with the treatment was 80.65  10.17,
with a median value of 90 (half of the patients scored 90 or more).
In the group of crowns, the average satisfaction rises to 90.03,
greater than that of the group of teeth supporting FPDs (80.27),
obtaining significant differences (p = 0.022).
4. Discussion
A good relationship between dental restorations and the
periodontium is of fundamental importance to ensure clinical
success both in terms of function and esthetics [21,22].
According to clinical reports [6,15–17], BOPT provides increases
in gingival thickness, greater stability of the gingival margin (less
chance of suffering recessions), an easier way to take impressions
 B. Serra-Pastor et al. / journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420
(since it is a finish area and not a defined line), and they are also
associated with a good marginal fit [18–20]. However, it is a more
complex technique than the conventional one; which requires a
higher learning curve. Likewise, it is a technique that requires prior
learning by the laboratory technician, since there is no dental
termination line and it is the dental technician (together with the
clinician) who decides where to place the prosthetic finish line
according to each patient different situation [15–17].
The present study included 51 patients, similar to studies by,
Valderhaugh [23], Pippin [24], Peláez [11], and Paniz [12]; who
conducted prospective studies of between 3 and 5 years to analyze
the relations between restorations and periodontium.
Oral hygiene was managed before treatment and in each annual
follow-up visit with oral hygiene instructions and a professional
cleaning like in other studies in the literature [11,12].
Various parameters were evaluated during the follow-up:
gingival thickness, inflammation with presence of bleeding,
plaque, marginal stability, complications and patients’ satisfaction
with treatment. These parameters have been assessed in other
studies by Valderhaugh [23], Müller [25], Paniz [12,13], and Tunner
[26]. However, only one other work by Agustin [17] has monitored
changes in gingival thickness around restorations placed on teeth
prepared using BOPT.
Plaque was found to affect 20% of the teeth after 4 years, a
similar finding to Paniz [12], who registered the presence of
plaque on 17% of restorations prepared also with BOPT technique.
In BOPT restorations there is no discrepancy between the
termination line and the restoration since there is no chamfer.
This fact also helps to have less plaque retention in this area.
Comparing these results with preparations made with chamfer,
similar findings were found, such as Paniz [12] with 18% plaque
after 12 months of follow-up. However, significantly higher
results also appear as those of Sjögren [27] and Pelaez [11] with
28% and 60% plaque respectively.
In the present study, an increase in probing depth (more than
3 mm) was observed only in 3 teeth after 4 years follow-up (only in
1 patient). These data are similar to a study by Eliasson [28] and
Paniz [12] in which the periodontal status did not change over
time. Regarding teeth prepared with chamfer, Paniz [12] also found
similar results; however, Tunner [26] got higher rates of probing
depth with a 23% of the sample with more than 5 mm after 6 years.
Gingival inflammation with bleeding affected 12% of teeth after
4 years, a result that differs from Paniz [12] in which 41.3% of
zirconia crowns on teeth prepared with knife-edge finish line
presented inflammation and 52.5% presented bleeding on probing.
As for preparations with chamfer, Pelaez [11] obtained a high
percentage (70%) of inflammation after 4 years, and Tunner [26]
found a bleeding on probing of 38.1% after 6 years.
Gingival recession was only observed in two of the teeth assessed
(1.4%); however, this result was associated with an aggressive oral
hygiene technique. These are similar data to Paniz [12], who
observed recessions in 1.1% of teeth prepared with the same finish
line. But unlike the present work, studies by Peláez [11] and Dhima
[29] obtained higher values, 30% and 7% respectively, although the
teeth analyzed were prepared with chamfer finish lines.
Referring to the increase in gingival thickness, statistically the
most relevant variation with evidence occurs in the first year (T1)
(p > 0.001). From T2 onwards the increase in gingival thickness is
not statistically significant (p = 1000). Only one other work by
Agustin [17] has monitored changes in gingival thickness around
restorations placed on teeth prepared using BOPT in the long term.
The physiological explanation of the increase of gingival tissue is
that healing of tissues after a BOPT preparation proceeds with the
same mechanisms of wound healing [30]. In this stage new blood
vessels are created and the fibroblasts and myofibroblasts of the
degranulation tissue grow and fill the space caused by the rotatory
419
curettage. At this time there is a contraction of the myofibroblasts
around the tooth; and thanks to the conical dental preparation
there is a migration of the soft tissues towards coronal (from the
area of greater diameter (apical) to the area of minor (coronal)). In
this stage it has been described that tissue growth occurs due to a
transduction mechanism [30,31]. The connective tissue fibroblasts
detect mechanical stimuli (chewing, provisional pressure, lip
pressure when speaking) in their extracellular matrix; these
stimuli are converted into chemical information that stimulates
cell growth and proliferation [31].
The survival rate of the ceramic restorations in the present
study was 96.5%. Only one patient presented a connector fracture
three years after restoration, while another presented vestibular
porcelain chipping after three years. The fractured FPD connector
was in an area of maximum esthetics (between maxillary central
incisor and maxillary lateral incisor). In this area the connector
area was reduced for aesthetic reasons, resulting in a decrease in
resistance at this point. These findings are similar to Schmitt [32]
who obtained a survival rate of 100% in teeth prepared with
feather-edged with 3-year follow-up. Regarding preparations with
finish line in zirconia restorations, Tunner [26] got similar results
with a survival rate of 95%.
The present study assessed patients’ satisfaction with the
restorative treatment received by means of a VAS on a scale of 0–
100, obtaining mean satisfaction of 80.73. In the study by Paniz
[12] satisfaction was higher, with a value of 96.5% for esthetics and
98% for function, but this study is only after 6-month follow-up.
5. Conclusion
Having evaluated the clinical and periodontal behavior of full
coverage restorations placed on teeth prepared using BOPT, it may
be concluded that:
Restorations on teeth prepared with BOPT show a general
survival rate of 96.5%; 97.2% in teeth supporting simple-unit
crowns, and 95.9% in teeth supporting FPDs. Mechanical and
biological failures are scarce, which shows that this preparation
technique produces predictable results over a 4-year follow-up.
Periodontal behavior around restored teeth prepared using
BOPT is good, obtaining low rates of gingival inflammation with
bleeding (12%), low increases in probing depth (2.1%), and low
presence of plaque (20%).
BOPT is the technique of choice in cases of retreatment with
fixed prosthesis due to problems of marginal fit or recession in the
anterior sector, since it produces an increasing of gingival
thickening, mainly during the first year follow-up. Moreover, it
promotes marginal stability, it has a high survival rate, and it has a
good periodontal behavior over time.
References
[1] Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs:
part 1. Outcome. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:439–45.
[2] Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs:
part 2. Modes of failure and influence of various clinical characteristics. Int J
Prosthodont 2003;16:177–82.
[3] Silness J. Periodontal conditions in patients treated with dental bridges. 3. The
relationship between the location of the crown margin and the periodontal
condition. J Periodontal Res 1970;5:225–9.
[4] Valderhaug J. Periodontal conditions and carious lesions following the
insertion of fixed prostheses: a 10-year follow-up study. Int Dent J
1980;30:296–304.
[5] Tsitrou EA, Northeast SE, van Noort R. Evaluation of the marginal fit of three
margin designs of resin composite crowns using CAD/CAM. J Dent
2007;35:68–73.
[6] Loi I, Di Felice A. Biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT): a new
approach for prosthetic restoration of periodontically healthy teeth. Eur J
Esthet Dent 2013;8:10–23.
[7] Podhorsky A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Tooth preparation for full-coverage
restorations-a literature review. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:959–68.
420 B. Serra-Pastor et al. / journal of prosthodontic research 63 (2019) 415–420
[8] Merijohn GK. Management and prevention of gingival recession. Periodontol
2000 2016;71:228–42.
[9] Shillingburg Jr HT, Hobo S, Fisher DW. Preparation design and margin
distortion in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent
2003;89:527–32.
[10] Pardo GI. A full cast restoration design offering superior marginal character-
istics. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:539–43.
[11] Pelaez J, Cogolludo PG, Serrano B, Serrano JF, Suarez MJ. A four-year
prospective clinical evaluation of zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior fixed
dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:451–8.
[12] Paniz G, Nart J, Gobbato L, Chierico A, Lops D, Michalakis K. Periodontal
response to two different subgingival restorative margin designs: a 12-month
randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1243–52.
[13] Paniz G, Nart J, Gobbato L, Mazzocco F, Stellini E, De Simone G, et al. Clinical
periodontal response to anterior all-ceramic crowns with either chamfer or
feather-edge subgingival tooth preparations: six-month results and patient
perception. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017;37:61–8.
[14] Agustín-Panadero R, Solá-Ruíz MF. Vertical preparation for fixed prosthesis
rehabilitation in the anterior sector. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:474–8.
[15] Agustín-Panadero R, Chust-López C. Protocoloclínico-protésico de la técnica BOPT.
Barcelona: Ediciones Especializadas Europeas; 2016 ISBN: 9788494466328.
[16] Agustín-Panadero R, Solá-Ruíz MF, Chust C, Ferreiroa A. Fixed dental
prostheses with vertical tooth preparations without finish lines: a report of
two patients. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:520–6.
[17] Agustín-Panadero R, Serra-Pastor B, Fons-Font A, Solá-Ruíz MF. Prospective
clinical study of zirconia full-coverage restorations on teeth prepared with
biologically oriented P preparation technique on gingival health: results after
two-year follow-up. Oper Dent 2018;43:482–7.
[18] Patroni S, Chiodera G, Caliceti C, Ferrari P. CAD/CAM technology and zirconium
oxide with feather-edge marginal preparation. Eur J Esthet Dent 2010;5:78–100.
[19] Poggio CE, Dosoli R, Ercoli C. A retrospective analysis of 102 zirconia single
crowns with knife-edge margins. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:316–21.
[20] Schmitz JH, Cortellini D, Granata S, Valenti M. Monolithic lithium disilicate
complete single crowns with feather-edge preparation design in the posterior
region: a multicentric retrospective study up to 12 years. Quintessence Int
(Berl) 2017;20:601–8.
[21] Abduo J, Lyons KM. Interdisciplinary interface between fixed prosthodontics
and periodontics. Periodontol 2000 2017;74:40–62.
[22] Andreana S. Restorative options for the periodontal patient. Dent Clin North
Am 2010;54:157–61.
[23] Valderhaug J, Birkeland JM. Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years
following insertion of fixed prostheses: pocket depth and loss of attachment. J
Oral Rehabil 1976;3:237–43.
[24] Pippin DJ, Mixson JM, Soldan-Els AP. Clinical evaluation of restored maxillary
incisors: veneers vs. PFM crowns. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1523–9.
[25] Müller HP. The effect of artificial crown margins at the gingival margin on the
periodontal conditions in a group of periodontally supervised patients treated
with fixed bridges. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:97–102.
[26] Tanner J, Niemi H, Ojala E, Närhi T, Hjerppe J, Tolvanen M. Zirconia single
crowns and multiple-unit FDPs—an up to 8 -year retrospective clinical study. J
Dent 2018;79:96–101.
[27] Sjögren G, Lantto R, Tillberg A. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns (Dicor)
in general practice. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:277–84.
[28] Eliasson A, Arnelund CF, Johansson A. A clinical evaluation of cobalt-chromium
metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures and crowns: a three- to seven-year
retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:6–16.
[29] Dhima M, Paulosova V, Carr AB, Rieck KL, Lohse C, Salinas TJ. Practice-based
clinical evaluation of ceramic single crowns after at least five years. J Prosthet
Dent 2014;111:124–30.
[30] Rodríguez X, Vela X, Segalà M. Cutting-edge implant rehabilitation design and
management: a tapered abutment approach. Compend Contin Educ Dent
2017;38:482–91.
[31] Chiquet M, Gelman L, Lutz R, Maier S. From mechanotransduction to
extracellular matrix gene expression in fibroblasts. Biochim Biophys Acta
2009;1793:911–20.
[32] Schmitt J, Wichmann M, Holst S, Reich S. Restoring severely compromised
anterior teeth with zirconia crowns and feather-edged margin preparations: a 3-
year follow-up of a prospective clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:107–9.