Class II composite marginal ridge failure: Conventional vs. proximal box only preparation

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 131-136

  Castillo, Marquita D ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HERCULITE XR; OPTIBOND; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; TETRIC;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH;

BICUSPID; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MATERIALS TESTING; RESIN CEMENTS;

EID: 0033404427     PISSN: 10534628     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Arenas J, Ruben J. Fluoride release from a composite resin. Quint Int 19: 513-514, 1988.
2. Bell JG, et al. Cuspal failures of MOD restored teeth. Aust Dent J 27: 283-287, 1982.
3. Blaser PK, et al. Effects of design of class II preparations on resistance of teeth to fracture. Oper Dent 8: 6-10, 1983.
4. Cavel WT, Kelsey WP, Blakenau RJ. An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. J Pros Dent 53: 38-42, 1985.
5. Croll TP. Direct proximal restoration of a permanent first molar: a window of opportunity. Pract Perio Aesth Dent 4: 43-46, 1992.
6. Croll TP. Lateral access class II restoration using resin-modified glass ionomer silver cermet. Quint Int 26: 121-126, 1995.
7. Dickenson OI, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB, Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on wear rate of posterior composite resins. JADA 121: 251-5, 1990.
8. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth with class II bonded composite restorations. J Dent. Res. 64(Special Issue); 350 Abstr. #28, 1985.
9. Eakle WS. Increased fracture resistance of teeth: comparison of five bonded composite resin systems. Quint Int 17: 17-20, 1986.
10. Fasbinder DJ, Davis RD, Burgess JO. Marginal ridge strength in class II tunnel restorations. Am J Dent 2: 77-82, 1991.
11. Gelb MN, Barouch E, Simonsen RJ. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II prepared and restored premolars. J Pros Dent 55: 184-185, 1986.
12. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A four year retrospective clinical study of class I and class II composite restorations. J Dent 25: 229-232, 1997.
13. Gorucu J, et al. Effects of preparation designs and adhesive systems on retention of class II amalgam restorations. J Pros Dent 78: 250-254, 1997.
14. Hill FJ, Haleseh FJ. A laboratory investigation of tunnel restorations in premolar teeth. Br Dent J 10: 364-367, 1988.
15. Hunt PR. Microconservative restorations for approximal carious lesions. JADA 120: 37-40, 1990.
16. Jordan RE, et al. Posterior composite restorations: where and how they work best. JADA 122: 31-37, 1991.
17. Khairy A, Simonsen RJ. Fracture resistance in conservative class II cavity preparations, box vs. tunnel. J Dent Res 67: 382 (Abstr. 2157), 1988.
18. Kreulen CM, et al. Two year results with box-only resin composite restorations. J Dent Child 60: 395-400, 1996.
19. Knight G. The tunnel restoration. Nine years of clinical experience using capsulated glass ionomer cements. Austr Dent J 4: 245-251, 1992.
20. Landy NA, Simonsen RJ. Cusp fracture strength in class II composite resin restorations J Dent Res 63 (Spec Issue): 175. Abstr # 40, 1984.
21. Larson JD, et al. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 6: 2-5. 1981.
22. Leinfelder KF. A conservative approach to placing posterior composite resin restorations. JADA 127: 743-748, 1996.
23. Leinfelder KF. Using composite resin as a posterior restorative material. JADA 122: 65-70, 1991.
24. Leibenberg WH. Direct access to equivocal approximal carious lesions. Quint Int 27: 607-617, 1996.
25. Mac Kenzie D. The reinforcing effect of MOD and etch composite restorations on weakened posterior teeth. Brit Dent J 161: 410-4, 1986.
26. Mair LH. Wear patterns on two amalgam and three posterior composites after five years clinical service. J Dent 23: 107-112, 1995.
27. Morand JM. Resin modified glass ionomer cement restoration of posterior teeth with proximal carious lesions. Quint Int 26: 389-394, 1995.
28. Mondelli J, et al. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Pros Dent 43: 419-422, 1980.
29. Morin D, et al. Cusp reinforcement with the acid etch technique. J Dent Res 63: 1075-1078, 1984.
30. Papa J, et al. Tunnel restorations vs. class II restorations for small proximal lesions: a comparison of tooth strengths. Quint Int 24: 93-98, 1993.
31. Purk JH, et al. Marginal ridge strength of class II tunnel restorations. Am J Dent 8: 75-79, 1995.
32. Roberts MW, et al. Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: a three year study. J Pros Dent 67: 301-306, 1992.
33. Rogenkamp CL, et al. The facial slot preparation: a non-occlusal option for class II carious lesions. Oper Dent 7: 102-106, 1984.
34. Schultz CJ, et al. Effect of sealant on the strength of teeth with and without proximal cavity preparations. Quint Int 17: 75-78, 1986.
35. Simonsen RJ, Barouch E, Gelb M. Cuspal fracture resistance from composite resin in class II restorations, (abstr 761) J Dent Res 62: 254, 1983.
36. Staninec M, et al. Retention of amalgam restorations: undercuts vs. bonding. Quint Int 20: 347-351, 1989.
37. Summitt JB, et al. The strength of composite resin restorations as affected by preparation design. Quint Int 25: 251-257, 1994.
38. Surmont P, et al. The preventive class II restoration: clinical application. Quint Int 22: 211-214, 1991.
39. Vale WA. Cavity preparation and further thoughts on high speed. Brit Dent J 107: 333-336, 1959.
40. Wendt SL, et al. Clinical evaluation of photoclearfil posterior restoration, three year results. Am J Dent 5: 121-5, 1992.
41. Wisniewski JF, et al. Five year clinical evaluation of a fine particle posterior composite. J Dent Res 70: (Spec Issue) 457, 1991.
42. Scientific documentation Tetric Ceram and Tetric Flow Ivoclar North America, 1997.