Microleakage and damage to adjacent teeth when finishing Class II adhesive preparations using either a sonic device or bur.
SourceAmerican Journal of Dentistry, 15, 5, (2002), pp. 317-320
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Preventative Restorative Dentistry
American Journal of Dentistry
SubjectAdhesive dentistry; Adhesieve tandheelkunde
PURPOSE: To detetmine the damage to adjacent tooth surfaces and the quality of the marginal seal of a resin-based composite restoration when a sonic preparation device (Sonicsys) was used to finish the preparation outline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three general practitioners prepared 60 Class II box-type cavities in extracted teeth placed in an artificial jaw in a phantom-head. In 30 preparations a bevel was made with a bur, in the other 30 restorations the margins were finished using the sonic preparation device. All preparations were restored with a total-etch technique and a posterior composite (SA primer-Photo Bond-Clearfil PhotoPosterior). Microleakage was tested and the adjacent teeth were inspected for iatrogenic damage. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between the experimental and control groups. In the control group, 80% of the approximal surfaces of adjacent teeth were damaged while only 30% of the adjacent surfaces were damaged in the experimental group (P < 0.05, Chi-square test).
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.