Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 1998
- Dowloads 181
Case Reports
Open AccessComparative clinical evaluation of slot versus dovetail Class III
composite restorations in primary anterior teeth
Comparative clinical evaluation of slot versus dovetail Class III composite restorations in primary anterior teeth
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Denant Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand.
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.2.n98241p717350438 Vol.28,Issue 2,April 2004 pp.125-130
Published: 01 April 2004
*Corresponding Author(s): Chutima Trairatvorakul E-mail: ctrairat@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study compares the clinical characteristic evaluations of slot against dovetail class III composite restorations. Focusing on the primary anterior teeth of children aged 2 years 6 months to 5 years 3 months with the mean age of 4 years, thirty-six matched pairs of class III of slot and dovetail preparations were made by one investigator. These preparations were evaluated for marginal adaptation, anatomic form, secondary caries and marginal discoloration after 6, 12, and 24 months by another investigator with the intra-examiner reliability of 0.95 – 1 (Kappa Statistic). The results revealed no statistical significance in the difference of clinical characteristics between the two designs (p > 0.05).
Cite and Share
Chutima Trairatvorakul,Supatcharin Piwat. Comparative clinical evaluation of slot versus dovetail Class III composite restorations in primary anterior teeth. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2004. 28(2);125-130.
References
1. Van Meerbeek BV, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 26: 1-20, 1998.
2. Triolo PT, Swift EJ. Shear bond strength of ten dentin adhesive systems. Dent Mat 8: 370-374, 1992.
3. Fritz U, Garcia-Godoy F, Finger WJ. Enamel and dentin bond strength and bonding mechanism to dentin of Gluma CPS to primary teeth. J Dent Child 64: 32-38, 1997.
4. Mazzeo N, Ott NW, Hondrum SO. Resin bonding to primary teeth using three adhesive systems. Pediatr Dent 17: 112-115, 1995.
5. Fagan TR, Crall JJ, Jensen ME, Chalkley Y, Clarkson B. A comparison of two dentin bonding agents in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 8: 144-146, 1986.
6. Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE. Fundamentals of pediatric dentistry 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., pp 248- 250, 1995.
7. Curzon MEJ, Roberts JF, Kennedy DE. Kennedy’s paediatric operative dentistry. 4th ed. Oxford Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., pp 89-91, 1996.
8. McEvoy SA. A modified class III cavity preparation and composite resin filling technique for primary incisor. Dent Clin North Am 28: 145-155, 1984.
9. Pinkham JR. Pediatric dentistry infancy through adolescence 3rd ed. Philadelphia W.B. Saunders Co., pp 331-333, 1999.
10. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30: 347-358, 1980.
11. Qvist V,Thylstrup A, Mjor IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of resin restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 44: 351-356, 1986.
12. Friedl KH, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 20: 34-38, 1995.
13. Atkins CO, Rubenstein L, Avent M. Preliminary clinical evaluation of dentinal and enamel bonding in primary anterior teeth. J Pedodont 10: 239-246, 1986.
14. Burke FJ, McCaughey AD. The four generations of dentin bonding. Am J Dent 8: 88-92, 1995.
15. Freedman G, Goldstep F. Fifth generation bonding system: state of the art in adhesive dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 63: 439-443, 1997.
16. Swift EJ. Bonding systems for restorative materials – a comprehensive review. Pediatr Dent 20: 80-84, 1998.
17. Knight GT, Berry TG, Barghi N, Burns TR. Effects of two methods of moisture control on marginal microleakage between resin composite and etched enamel: A clinical study. Int J Prosth 6: 475-479, 1993.
Submission Turnaround Time
Top