PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11203986

Minimal intervention: advanced lesions.

Abstract

Minimal intervention techniques are generally considered in relation to initial carious lesions. However, it appears logical to apply the same principles to extensive cavities as well as to the replacement of failed existing restorations. As the cavity becomes larger, there is an increasing need to consider protection of remaining cusps because they become seriously weakened by loss of the central core of the crown and therefore become subject to the development of splits at the base. However, it is possible to develop a protective cavity design without undue sacrifice of remaining tooth structure, at the same time that maintenance of occlusal anatomy and correct contact with the opposing arch are ensured. For larger cavities, special consideration needs to be given to the strength of the restorative material. Glass ionomer is relatively brittle and should not be exposed to undue occlusal load. Resin composites cannot be regarded as universal in their physical properties, and placement is time-consuming. A lamination technique is often useful, combining the advantages of both glass ionomer and resin composite. Amalgam should not be entirely discarded as an option because it has greater strength than both glass ionomer and resin composite and is still useful for the restoration of extensive cavities and for protection and retention of weakened cusps. Minimal intervention principles, designed to limit the loss of natural tooth structure, should be applied to all restorative dentistry. None of the available restorative materials is entirely satisfactory in the long term.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G J Mount, H Ngo. 2000. Minimal intervention: advanced lesions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11203986/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Functional roles of oral reflexes in chewing and biting: phase-, task- and site-dependent reflex sensitivity.

Because loading during chewing is not totally predictable and jaw-closing muscles are strong and act over short distances, feedback from oral receptors is important in the control of mastication. Information on such feedback can be obtained by studying reflexes in jaw muscle EMGs. This review will deal with the contribution of reflex mechanisms to modifying motor neuron activity during chewing, and the dependency of reflex sensitivity on motor task, phase of movement, and site of stimulation.

Bite Force↗