PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Alteration of odontoblast osteonectin expression following dental cavity preparation.

Cavity preparation can increase the active synthesis and secretion of non-collagenous proteins by odontoblasts, thus resulting in the deposition of tertiary dentine. In this study, the effect of cavity preparation on osteonectin expression was examined in odontoblasts of the rat tooth pulp. A class V cavity was prepared in rat first molars to stimulate odontoblastic secretory activity, and the animals were killed at various intervals. In the normal pulp, osteonectin immunoreactivity was detected in odontoblasts but not other cells. At 1 day after cavity preparation, immunoreactivity had diminished beneath the cavity. At 3 days, strong immunoreactivity could be detected in odontoblasts beneath the cavity. Numerous round cells underlying the odontoblastic layer also demonstrated immunoreactivity. Thereafter, the intensity of osteonectin immunoreactivity in odontoblasts beneath tertiary dentine decreased gradually, and at 30 and 60 days, it was weaker than in normal pulp. These findings suggest that osteonectin is actively synthesized by odontoblasts underlying a cavity in the initial stage of tertiary dentine formation.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

A clinical evaluation of an Erbium:YAG laser for dental cavity preparation.

OBJECTIVE: A randomised controlled trial to determine the acceptability to dentists and patients of cavity preparation with an Erbium:YAG laser as compared with conventional handpieces. METHODS: Fifteen dentists (9 GDPs, 1 community dentist and 5 hospital dentists) treated 77 patients (age range 3.5-68 years old) who had two matched cavities, in a split mouth, randomised trial. One cavity was prepared conventionally, the other with the laser, with dentist and patient preference determined by questionnaire. RESULTS: In the majority of cases, where dentists expressed a preference, it was for conventional cavity preparation, and this was significant (P < 0.001). In more than half of the laser appointments, dentists had to use conventional handpieces to complete the cavity. Principle difficulties reported with the laser were access (25 cases) and slow speed of cutting (11 cases). Patients aged > or = 10 years who expressed a preference, preferred laser treatment, and this was significant (P < 0.001). Patients aged < 10 years, assessed using a simplified pictorial questionnaire, did not show a significant preference for either technique. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists preferred conventional handpieces for cavity preparation while patients aged > or = 10 years old preferred laser treatment. Patients < 10 years old did not express a preference.

Adolescent↗