PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DENTAL CAVITY LINING”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Influence of cavity configuration on the adhesion of two resin-based composites to pulpal floor dentin.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of cavity configuration on microtensile bond strengths of two resin composites for core build-up to pulpal floor dentin. METHODS: Access cavity preparation and root canal filling with gutta percha were performed on extracted human molars. Following this, the gutta percha in the pulp chamber was completely removed to expose pulpal floor dentin. The cavity walls remained as a control group (Cavity). For another group, the cavity walls were removed to create a flat surface for bonding (Flat). For the Cavity group, Clearfil SE Bond was applied to the cavity according to the manufacturer's instructions, and either a light-cured resin composite (PH, Clearfil Photo Core) or a dual-cured resin composite (DC, Clearfil DC Core), was placed in the bonded cavity. Clearfil Photo Core was placed in three increments while bulk-filling was used for Clearfil DC Core. The application of the bonding system and the composites to the flat dentin surface was the same as that for cavity. Specimens were stored in water for 1 week, then sectioned vertically into 2 or 3 slabs (0.7 mm thick) and trimmed for the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) test. The MTBSs were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. RESULTS: The results (mean +/- SD, MPa, n=10) of PH/Cavity, PH/Flat and DC/Flat were 21.9 +/- 3.4, 28.9 +/- 4.0, and 27.6 +/- 6.1 respectively. The MTBS could not be determined in DC/Cavity because of debonding occurred during sample preparation.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2006

Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the designated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. CONCLUSION: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of base/liner use on restoration leakage.

Central to the success of a restoration is the quality of the restoration-dentin interfacial seal; any compromise of the seal can lead to secondary or recurrent decay. Class V restorations have a high leakage propensity and this study evaluates the effect of base/liner placement on leakage behavior. Class V intracoronal half enamel/half dentin preparations (3.0 x 2.0 x 2.0 mm) were cut in four groups (n = 10) of extracted human teeth with a new bur used for each cavity preparation. All teeth were single-rooted, single-canal anterior teeth. Base/liner usage differed between each group. The first group of teeth had no liner or base, while a liner was placed in the second group of teeth prior to conditioning and restoration. A base was placed in the third group of cavity preparations and both the base and liner were placed in the fourth group. After preparation, a small diameter bare-end PVC-insulated copper wire was inserted within the root canal of each tooth from the apex to firm contact with the pulp chamber roof. The tooth-wire interface and root surface was sealed and leakage was followed electrochemically for 35 days in 0.9% NaCl solution. All of the teeth leaked to some degree; however, teeth that were restored without liner or base demonstrated the smallest amount of leakage. The greatest leakage was noted in teeth restored with both a base and a liner; teeth restored with only a base showed greater leakage than those restored with only a liner. The findings indicate that the presence of a base and/or a liner results in greater leakage compared with intracoronal Class V preparations that were conditioned and restored only. The data suggest that placing both a base and a liner increases restoration leakage significantly.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMed2006

A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: current techniques for posterior direct resin restorations.

In general excellent results cannot be guaranteed when using resin-based composites for posterior restorations. This is due to polymerization shrinkage which can still be regarded as the primary negative characteristic of composite resins. A review of available literature regarding the polymerization process, its flaws, and suggested strategies to avoid shrinkage stress was conducted. Several factors responsible for the polymerization process may negatively affect the integrity of the tooth-restoration complex. There is no straightforward way of handling adhesive restorative materials that can guarantee the reliability of a restoration. At present, the practitioner has to coexist with the problem of polymerization shrinkage and destructive shrinkage stress. However, evolving improvements associated with resin-based composite materials, dental adhesives, filling, and light curing techniques have improved the predictability of such restorations. This critical review paper is meant to be a useful contribution to the recognition and understanding of problems related to polymerization shrinkage and to provide clinicians with the opportunity to improve the quality of composite resin restorations.

Bicuspid↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Root surface marginal microleakage of composites: comparison of Cavosurface finishes.

The effect on microleakage of a modification of the cavosurface finish was evaluated using extracted thermalcycled teeth. Composite resin was placed in cavity preparations on root surfaces of teeth and finished to leave either a flash of material on the margin or finished flush to the margin. The teeth were thermalcycled for 10 days at 5 and 55 degrees C. The teeth were evaluated for microleakage using the silver nitrate staining procedure. Results showed a significant decrease in the amount of microleakage on the margins finished leaving a flash of composite resin. Clinical trials placing these restorations on root surfaces will be necessary to evaluate the impact on the periodontal health.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed1991

Quantitative in vivo evaluation of four restorative concepts for mixed Class V restorations.

This study was performed in vivo over a 6-month period to assess restorative margins in Class V restorations placed with different techniques. The margins were evaluated quantitatively under the scanning electron microscope using the replica technique. Results indicated that the sandwich technique using a glass-ionomer cement base and a composite resin restoration was not able to prevent marginal gaps in dentin. However, the experimental Gluma/Clearfil system resulted in a quality of dentinal margins not statistically significantly different from that of enamel margins. These in vivo findings substantiate in vitro results.

Adhesives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of treatment times for Class II composite resin restorations.

This article describes the results of an investigation into the treatment time required for the placement of Class II composite resin restorations. For purposes of this study, three dentists made 183 standard Class II composite resin restorations, both two-surface and three-surface, according to a detailed treatment protocol. Time registrations were carried out during the treatments, and each treatment was divided into five sections, each representing one stage in the restorative process. Of the various factors which may affect treatment time, the following were studied: the dentist; the type of tooth; the type of restoration; and the presence of an existing amalgam restoration in the tooth to be restored. Following in transformation of the treatment times obtained, an analysis of variance was employed. In this study the average treatment time for Class II composite resin restoration was 41.8 minutes. The results indicated that the factors mentioned above significantly affect the treatment time. In addition, the treatment time of one of the dentists was influenced by a marked learning effect.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1990

Microleakage and marginal placement of a glass-ionomer liner.

Glass-ionomer cements, with their ability to bond to dentin, have been reported to produce less microleakage than several other restorative resin materials. This matched-pair study reports the effect on microleakage of placement of a light-curing glass-ionomer cement used as a liner when extended out to the dentinal cervical cavosurface margin or held short of that margin. Pairs of circular Class V cavities involving 50% enamel, with bevel, and 50% cementum were cut in 31 extracted third molars. After placement of the glass-ionomer cement, etching of the bevel, and placement of a resin bonding system, microfilled resin was placed over the bonding agent in one increment, light-cured, finished, and given 500 thermocycled 500 times between 5 and 55 degrees C. A silver nitrate staining technique was used to evaluate microleakage measured in graticular units (gu) along the dentinal interface under stereomicroscopy. The extension of the glass-ionomer liner out to the dentinal cavosurface margin did not significantly improve microleakage performance compared to performance of the liner when it was placed short of that margin and covered by a resin veneer. From other considerations, such as the potential for mechanical breakdown of the glass-ionomer cement when exposed to the oral environment and abrasion, and the possibility for improved esthetics, the clinician should consider holding the glass-ionomer liner short of the dentinal cavosurface margin and covering it with a composite resin veneer of a thickness consistent with structural integrity.

Dental Bonding↗
PubMed1990

Preventive restorative dentistry.

Greater use of conservative tooth restorations is advocated to encourage optimum tooth strength and restoration longevity. Improvements in tooth preparation instruments, and restorative materials, accompanied by use of magnification and meticulous care, afford optimum patient care for minimally sized carious lesions.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed1989

[Antimicrobial action of dental materials used in operative dentistry: a review].

This is a review of the literature about the antimicrobial action of dental materials used in operative dentistry. There are referred to the usefulness of the antimicrobial action of dental materials, and to the methods used by the investigators for the study of the antimicrobial properties. The methods used were: the examination of the in vitro antimicrobial action of the materials against several microbes, The in vivo antimicrobial action of the materials against the microbes that are enclosed underneath them in dental cavities, where some carious material was left on the floor of the cavities. Some other methods, as so as the adsorption of microbes on the experimental materials, in vivo and in vitro. There are presented the results of a lot of investigators for the antimicrobial action of dental amalgams, composite resins, silicate cements, glass-ionomer cements, zinc-phosphate, zinc oxide-eugenol and polycarboxylate cements, calcium hydroxide bases and also for varnishes and liners, since the time of Miller (1890) up to now. From these researches we can come to the following conclusions: 1) All dental materials have some antibacterial activities against several microbes when they are freshly mixed. Their action reduces with the past of time. 2) The responsible antibacterial factors are unknown. May be more than one factors. 3) In clinical practice it is not known what material is better, because the conditions are different from tooth to tooth and from mouth to mouth. 4) More researchers are necessary for this purpose because the antibacterial properties must be regarded as a part of the other biological properties of dental materials and the recurrent caries may be inhibited because of the antibacterial properties of filling and base materials.

Anti-Infective Agents↗
PubMed1978

[Pulp protection].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Dental Cavity Lining↗