PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT”

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 1,027 records · Page 57Linked to original sources
PubMed1983

Marginal failure of amalgam. Effect of alloy selection and bite forces.

Four amalgam alloys were used in a two and a half year study. 163 class II restorations were made and the marginal breakdown was studied. The biting forces of the patients were estimated and divided in three groups. The result indicated that the conventional amalgam showed more breakdowns than the high copper amalgams. Among these a dispersed and a ternary amalgam had least marginal failures. The amount of defects tended to be correlated to the biting force for the conventional and the dispersed amalgam.

Adult↗
PubMed1980

Management of periodontal disease in patients with occlusal abnormalities.

1. Periodontitis is a bacterial, plaque-induced disease. 2. Periodontal tissues may be affected simultaneously by inflammatory changes and traumatic changes. 3. Unless a traumatic injury is diagnosed, the occlusion should not be altered as part of the periodontal treatment. There is no place for prophylactic treatment of the occlusion. 4. Occlusal adjustment, occlusal bite splints, orthodontic treatment, and restorative dentistry are all means to treat the occlusion. 5. Occlusal treatment is generally performed after control of the inflammatory periodontal changes by root preparation and oral hygiene. 6. Restorative procedures should be carried out at least one to two months after completion of periodontal surgery. 7. The aim of occlusal therapy should be the establishment and maintenance of stable occlusal relationships and the restoration of an optimal occlusal function.

Bruxism↗
PubMed1995

Marginal ridge strength of Class II tunnel restorations.

PURPOSE: To test the strength, at the marginal ridge, of the tunnel preparation vs the Class II traditional box preparation when restored with composite or glass ionomer (GI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four extracted maxillary molars stored in normal saline and thymol were randomly divided into six groups of 14 each (determined by pilot study where alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2). Group A and C were tunnel preparations. Group B and D were traditional Class II preparations. Group E-whole tooth (negative control), and Group F-tunnel preparation unrestored (positive control). Group A and B were restored with Scotchbond 2/P-50 composite. Group C and D were restored with Ketac Fil-GI. The marginal ridge of each tooth was loaded at 0.5 mm/minute on the Instron. A loading rod produced a contact point of 1.0 mm in diameter. RESULTS: The mean compressive loads (kg) required for fracture were: (A): 42.2 +/- 11.9, (B): 53.1 +/- 10.7, (C): 52.0 +/- 10.9, (D): 23.8 +/- 8.4. (E): 79.1 +/- 16.1, (F): 27.0 +/- 10.6. A significant difference was found between whole teeth (E) and all other groups (P < 0.05). The Newman-Keuls test showed a significant difference between Class II composite (B) and tunnel composite (A) (P < 0.05), between tunnel GI (C) and tunnel composite (A) (P < 0.05) but no difference between tunnel GI (C) and Class II composite (B).

Analysis of Variance↗