Tooth-colored restorations of posterior teeth in German dental education
Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltungskunde ZZMK (Carolinum), Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Clinical Oral Investigations (Impact Factor: 2.35). 04/1999; 3(1):30-4. DOI: 10.1007/s007840050075
Optimizing the quality of tooth-colored restorations is one of the main topics of current research. But there is only little information available about university education in this field. The aim of this study was to collect and evaluate data about the different aspects of dental education in Germany concerning tooth-colored restorations. Based on the response to a questionnaire from 90% of all German dental schools in the fall of 1997 a detailed survey is given of the utilization, indications, practical procedure, problems and limitations of both direct and indirect tooth-colored restorations done by students. The results indicate a wide-spread use of directly inserted composite for posterior teeth in the different education programs. Indeed, the preferred preparation of the cavity margin differs from school to school. Rebuilding an adequate proximal contact and a precise fit at the gingival margin are looked upon as the main problems of class II composite fillings. Ceramic inlays are mainly inserted by students in advanced clinical courses with the insertion procedure being claimed as the main problem of this technique. The findings of this study mostly show the same limitations and difficulties of tooth-colored restorations in education as found by research. Partly different teaching concepts are reflected in the differing scientific results.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Obtaining acceptable contact areas with adjacent teeth is a great challenge when placing resin composite in Class II preparations  . This is partly inherent to the polymerization shrinkage of the resin composite and partly due to the fact that conventional resin composites cannot be condensed like amalgam [3,4]. "
ABSTRACT: Obtaining acceptable contact areas with adjacent teeth is a significant challenge when placing direct resin composite in Class II preparations. It was the purpose of this laboratory study to evaluate the influence of the type of resin composite ('packable' vs conventional) and of the matrix system on the quality of the proximal contact area in Class II composite restorations. A standardized DO cavity was prepared in 170 frasaco teeth. Two operators each filled 85 teeth in the same frasaco model using four resin composites [Solitaire (S), Surefil (Su), P60, Z100], three matrix systems [Automatrix (A), Palodent (P), Lucifix matrix (L)] and one hand instrument specially designed to achieve better proximal contacts [Belvedere Composite Contact Former (B)]. The teeth were subdivided into 17 groups (Z100/1-A, Z100/1-P, Z100/1-L, S-A, S-P, S-L, Z100/1-A-B, Z100/1-L-B, Su-A, Su-P, Su-L, P60-A, P60-P, P60-L, Z100/2-A, Z100/2-P, Z100/2-L). Each operator made five fillings of each group. The quality of the proximal contacts was assessed by measuring the maximum mesio-distal (M-D) diameter of the restored teeth using a digital micrometer and the tightness of the proximal contact area using standardized metal blades. All data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn's test for multiple comparisons with a significance level of P<0.05. Regarding the matrix system, a significant larger M-D diameter and a stronger proximal contact area was achieved with the Palodent matrix system. The use of the Belvedere Composite Contact Former together with Lucifix matrix and Automatrix contributed to significantly stronger proximal contact areas. Concerning the type of resin composite, no significant differences were noted for both evaluation criteria when Palodent was used. Using Automatrix or Lucifix matrix, the more condensable resin composite P60 scored slightly better than Surefil and Z100. There was no operator effect. Both operators underwent a learning process. The longer they worked with a specific material/technique, the better proximal contacts they achieved. The best proximal contact areas in Class II composite restorations were obtained using a sectional matrix system. The 'packability' of the resin composite did not help to achieve better proximal contacts.Dental Materials 11/2001; 17(6):533-41. DOI:10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00015-X · 3.77 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The significance of materials testing and clinical challenges for posterior composite restoration is discussed. The primary method for collecting clinical performance data of the posterior composite restoration is analyzed. The clinical data reveals that secondary caries and restoration fracture are the most common problems among the patients. The post operative sensitivity is found to be related to the dentin adhesives' ability to seal open dentinal tubules. Development of composite materials with antibacterial properties is recommended for reducing failures due to secondary caries.Dental Materials 02/2005; 21(1):9-20. DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001 · 3.77 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The gingival margins of class II composite restorations are particularly vulnerable to marginal leakage and secondary caries. In identifying the factors contributing to caries development, the molecular structure and differences in the structure at the proximal and gingival margins have been largely overlooked. The purpose of this study was to compare the molecular structure at the adhesive/dentin interface of the proximal and gingival walls of class II composite restorations. Class II preparations were cut in 12 unerupted third molars with a water-cooled high-speed dental handpiece. The prepared teeth were randomly selected for treatment with Single Bond (SB) + Z100 (3M). Teeth were restored, per manufacturer's directions, under humidity and temperature characteristic of the oral cavity. Restored teeth were kept in sterile Delbecco's phosphate saline for 48 h. The samples were sectioned occluso-gingivally and micro-Raman spectra were acquired at approximately 1.5-microm spatial resolution across the composite/adhesive/dentin interfaces. Samples were wet throughout spectral acquisition. Raman spectral characteristics at the proximal and gingival margins were distinctly different; the depth of demineralized dentin was 6-7 microm at proximal margin, 12-13 microm at gingival margin. SB adhesive penetrated the depth of demineralized dentin in a gradient at the proximal margin. The "single bottle" adhesive used in this study, gradually penetrated the depth of the demineralized dentin at the proximal margin but failed to infiltrate the depth at the gingival margin, leaving a thick exposed collagen layer.Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 12/2005; 75(3):580-7. DOI:10.1002/jbm.a.30451 · 3.37 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.