Abstract
Aim To test whether neighbouring-tooth restorations affect a focal tooth’s periodontal status (within-mouth spillover), and whether accounting for them alters the established association at the restored surface.
Materials and methods Prospective tooth-surface data from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP): SHIP-START (N=2,715/1,982/1,397, follow-ups 1–3) and SHIP-TREND (N=2,123). Own and neighbouring-tooth restoration were defined at baseline; probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and deep pockets (PD ≥4 mm) at follow-up. A neighbourhood-exposure mixed model with generalized propensity-score adjustment estimated both effects, with two corroborating estimators.
Results Own restoration was associated with worse periodontal status at that surface (crown PD exp(β) up to 1.10). Neighbouring-tooth restorations raised focal-tooth PD (spillover exp(β) 1.03–1.05) and deep-pocket risk (risk ratio up to 1.25); CAL and BOP showed none consistently. It attenuated with tooth-lag, nearing the null by two to three teeth in most estimators. Ignoring interference modestly inflated the direct effect; an opposing-tooth negative control showed none; untreated caries reproduced it.
Conclusions Dental restorations exert a within-mouth spillover on neighbouring-tooth PD: their periodontal footprint extends beyond the restored tooth. The direct association persists, modestly attenuated, after accounting for the neighbourhood.
Scientific rationale for the study Conventional surface-level analyses treat teeth as independent (the no-interference assumption) and cannot detect whether a tooth’s restoration affects the periodontal status of neighbouring teeth.
Principal findings Restorations on neighbouring teeth independently raised focal-tooth PD and deep-pocket risk; the spillover was local, specific to PD, and concordant for untreated caries. Ignoring interference inflated the direct own-restoration effect only modestly.
Practical implications A restoration’s periodontal footprint extends modestly beyond the restored surface to the neighbouring tooth; the dominant effect nonetheless remains local, and own-surface estimates overstate the direct effect only modestly.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
SHIP-START and SHIP-TREND were positively evaluated by the ethics committee of the University of Greifswald (SHIP-START-2/SHIP-TREND-0: BB 39/08a; SHIP-TREND-1: BB 174/15) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were informed about the study protocol and signed the informed consent and the privacy statement.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
