- Email: [email protected]
Tooth damage from removing overhanging amalgam
ASSIF AND
3.
4. 5. 6.
Dewhirst, R. B., Fisher, D.W., and Shillingburg, H. T.: Dowel core fabrication. J South Calif State Dent Assoc 37:444, 1969. Kurer, P. F.: Retention of post crowns-A solution of the problem. Br Dent J 123:167, 1967. Perel, M. L., and Muroff, F. I.: Clinical criteria for posts and cores. J PROSTHET DENT 28:405, 1972. Shillingburg, H. T., Fisher, D. W., and Dewhirst, R. B.: Restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth. J PROS-
dowels-E:ffects of retentive parameters. NIDR Dent Abstr No. 912:B290, 1976. 14. Hanson, E. C., and Caputo, A. A.: Cementing mediums and retentive characteristics of dowels. J PROSTHET DENT 32~551, 1974. 15. Krupp, J, D., Caputo, A. A., Trabert, K. C., and Standlee, J. P.: Dowel retention with glass-ionomercement.J PROSTHET DENT 41:163,
16.
THET DENT 24~401, 1970.
7.
Stern, N., and Hirshfeld, Z.: Principles of preparing endodontically treated teeth for dowel and core restoration. J PROSTHET
9.
Colley, I. T., Hampson, E. L., and Lehman, M. L.: Retention of post crowns. Br Dent J 124:63, 1968. Ruemping, D. R., Lund, M. R., and Schnell, R. J.: Retention of dowels subjected to tensile and torsional forces. J PROSTHET DENT 41:159,
10.
1979.
Standlee, J. P., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Retention of endodontic dowels: Effect of cement, dowel length, diameter,
and design. J
PROSTHET DENT 39~401, 1978.
11.
Newburg, R. E., and Cornelis, P. H.: Retentive properties of post and core systems.J PROSTHETDENT 36:636, 1976. 12. Jerry, K. J., and Sakumura, J. S.: Dowel form and tensile force. J PROSTHETDENT 40:645, 1978. 13. Standlee, J. P., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Endodontic
IADR PROSTHODONTIC
1979.
Fusayama, T., and Iwamoto, T.: Relationship between retaining force of inlays and film thickness of zinc oxyphosphate
cement.J Dent Res 39:756, 1960. 17
DENT 30~162, 1973.
8.
FERBER
18
Trabert, K. C., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Effects of cement type and thickness upon retention of serrated pins. J Dent Res 54227, 1975. Siegel, S.: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. International Student Edition. New York, 1956, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., pp 184-193.
Re,tmt requeststo: DR. DAVID ASSIF
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SACKLERSCHOLLOF MEDICINE SCHWL OF DENTAL MEDICINE TEL AVIV ISRAEL
ABSTRACT
Tooth damage from removing overhanging amalgam E. G. Givens, A. J. Gwinnett,
and L. J. Boucher
Oral Roberts University, School of Dentistry, Tulsa, Okla., and School of Dental Medicine,
The problem of restorations with overhanging amalgam is remedied by replacing the restoration or eliminating the overhang with mechanical operative procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on the tooth surface of three commonly used power-driven instruments. Comparisons were made of the effects of each method of instrumentation on the enamel, cementum, and amalgam. Forty extracted human premolar teeth were prepared to receive amalgam restorations. Half of each preparation was confined
Reprinted from the Journal of Dental Research [61 (Special Issue), 1982 (Abst No. 234)] with permission of the author and the editor.
296
Stony Brook, N.Y.
to enamel and half to cementurn. For control purposes half of each restoration was carved flush to the cavosurface occlusogingivally with a hand instrument, leaving the overhang on the other half of the tooth to be removed mechanically. Cavitron, Roto-Pro, and EVA System instruments were used. The samples were critically point dried for examination in the scanning electron microscope. Observations were recorded on Polaroid film. Findings showed significantly more abrasion on all surfaces in EVA groups compared to other groups. All surfaces in Roto groups appeared to be smoother than in other groups. There appeared to be little difference between treated surfaces and control surfaces in the Cavitron group. Clinical significance to be determined by future studies.
SEPTEMBER
1982
VOLUME
48
NUMBER
3
3.
4. 5. 6.
Dewhirst, R. B., Fisher, D.W., and Shillingburg, H. T.: Dowel core fabrication. J South Calif State Dent Assoc 37:444, 1969. Kurer, P. F.: Retention of post crowns-A solution of the problem. Br Dent J 123:167, 1967. Perel, M. L., and Muroff, F. I.: Clinical criteria for posts and cores. J PROSTHET DENT 28:405, 1972. Shillingburg, H. T., Fisher, D. W., and Dewhirst, R. B.: Restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth. J PROS-
dowels-E:ffects of retentive parameters. NIDR Dent Abstr No. 912:B290, 1976. 14. Hanson, E. C., and Caputo, A. A.: Cementing mediums and retentive characteristics of dowels. J PROSTHET DENT 32~551, 1974. 15. Krupp, J, D., Caputo, A. A., Trabert, K. C., and Standlee, J. P.: Dowel retention with glass-ionomercement.J PROSTHET DENT 41:163,
16.
THET DENT 24~401, 1970.
7.
Stern, N., and Hirshfeld, Z.: Principles of preparing endodontically treated teeth for dowel and core restoration. J PROSTHET
9.
Colley, I. T., Hampson, E. L., and Lehman, M. L.: Retention of post crowns. Br Dent J 124:63, 1968. Ruemping, D. R., Lund, M. R., and Schnell, R. J.: Retention of dowels subjected to tensile and torsional forces. J PROSTHET DENT 41:159,
10.
1979.
Standlee, J. P., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Retention of endodontic dowels: Effect of cement, dowel length, diameter,
and design. J
PROSTHET DENT 39~401, 1978.
11.
Newburg, R. E., and Cornelis, P. H.: Retentive properties of post and core systems.J PROSTHETDENT 36:636, 1976. 12. Jerry, K. J., and Sakumura, J. S.: Dowel form and tensile force. J PROSTHETDENT 40:645, 1978. 13. Standlee, J. P., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Endodontic
IADR PROSTHODONTIC
1979.
Fusayama, T., and Iwamoto, T.: Relationship between retaining force of inlays and film thickness of zinc oxyphosphate
cement.J Dent Res 39:756, 1960. 17
DENT 30~162, 1973.
8.
FERBER
18
Trabert, K. C., Caputo, A. A., and Hanson, E. C.: Effects of cement type and thickness upon retention of serrated pins. J Dent Res 54227, 1975. Siegel, S.: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. International Student Edition. New York, 1956, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., pp 184-193.
Re,tmt requeststo: DR. DAVID ASSIF
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SACKLERSCHOLLOF MEDICINE SCHWL OF DENTAL MEDICINE TEL AVIV ISRAEL
ABSTRACT
Tooth damage from removing overhanging amalgam E. G. Givens, A. J. Gwinnett,
and L. J. Boucher
Oral Roberts University, School of Dentistry, Tulsa, Okla., and School of Dental Medicine,
The problem of restorations with overhanging amalgam is remedied by replacing the restoration or eliminating the overhang with mechanical operative procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on the tooth surface of three commonly used power-driven instruments. Comparisons were made of the effects of each method of instrumentation on the enamel, cementum, and amalgam. Forty extracted human premolar teeth were prepared to receive amalgam restorations. Half of each preparation was confined
Reprinted from the Journal of Dental Research [61 (Special Issue), 1982 (Abst No. 234)] with permission of the author and the editor.
296
Stony Brook, N.Y.
to enamel and half to cementurn. For control purposes half of each restoration was carved flush to the cavosurface occlusogingivally with a hand instrument, leaving the overhang on the other half of the tooth to be removed mechanically. Cavitron, Roto-Pro, and EVA System instruments were used. The samples were critically point dried for examination in the scanning electron microscope. Observations were recorded on Polaroid film. Findings showed significantly more abrasion on all surfaces in EVA groups compared to other groups. All surfaces in Roto groups appeared to be smoother than in other groups. There appeared to be little difference between treated surfaces and control surfaces in the Cavitron group. Clinical significance to be determined by future studies.
SEPTEMBER
1982
VOLUME
48
NUMBER
3