The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Efficacy of Two Methods for Restorative Materials’ Removal in Primary Teeth

Daniela Gonçalves Bittar, Christiana Murakami, Daniela Hesse, José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato, Fausto Medeiros Mendes

Citation Information : Bittar DG, Murakami C, Hesse D, Imparato JC, Mendes FM. Efficacy of Two Methods for Restorative Materials’ Removal in Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (5):372-378.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1062

Published Online: 01-10-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

This in vitro study aimed to compare the time required for removal, the presence of residues of restorative material, tooth structure loss and dental surface morphology after removal of composite resin and amalgam restorations from occlusal cavities in primary molars using conventional high-speed bur and CVDentus® ultrasonic diamond tips.

Materials and methods

A total of 37 primary molars were allocated into four groups: Group 1 (n=9)—amalgam restorations removed using high-speed bur; Group 2 (n=10)—amalgam restorations removed using ultrasonic tip; Group 3 (n=8)— composite resin restorations removed using high-speed bur; Group 4 (n=10)—composite resin restorations removed using ultrasonic tip. After being restored, teeth were sectioned and analyzed through stereoscopic microscope images before and after restoration removal. The structural loss was analyzed by software of image analysis, and an examiner assessed for the presence of residues. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the morphology. Time and structural loss values were compared using ANOVA, and the percentages of samples with residues using Fisher test.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the tooth structure loss among different methods and restorative materials, as well as in the presence of residues of restorative material. However, diamond burs were faster than the ultrasonic method for both materials. Differences in dental morphology were observed between the methods of restoration removal, but not related to the restorative material.

Conclusion

Both conventional high-speed bur and ultrasonic diamond tip methods remove similar amounts of tooth structure, but the removal performed with diamond tips in ultrasonic devices is slower.

Clinical significance

This study shows that both ultrasonic and conventional high-speed bur methods for removing restorations generate similar loss of sound dental tissue, but the former is slower.

How to cite this article

Bittar DG, Murakami C, Hesse D, Imparato JCP, Mendes FM. Efficacy of Two Methods for Restorative Materials’ Removal in Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(5):372-378.


PDF Share
  1. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 2000;58(3):97-101.
  2. Overtreatment with restorative dentistry: When to intervene? Int Dent J 1993;43(1):17-24.
  3. Cylindrical CVD diamond as a high-performance small abrading device. Surf Coat Technol 1998;108:437-41.
  4. The use of CVD diamond burs for ultraconservative cavity preparations: A report of two cases. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19(1):19-28; discussion 9.
  5. Minimally invasive dentistry using sonic and ultra-sonic devices in ultraconservative Class 2 restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9(2):155-65.
  6. Effect of cavity preparation instruments (oscillating or rotating) on the composite-dentin interface in primary teeth. Dent Mater 2003;19(4):259-63.
  7. Use of CV Dent US diamond tips for ultrasound in cavity preparation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7(3):50-58.
  8. Evaluation of the dental structure loss produced during maintenance and replacement of occlusal amalgam restorations. Braz Oral Res 2008;22(3):242-46.
  9. Restoration removal with and without the aid of magnification. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(4): 309-13.
  10. Ultrasonic versus high-speed cavity preparation: Analysis of increases in pulpal temperature and time to complete preparation. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(2):107-09.
  11. Preparation time and sealing effect of cavities prepared by an ultrasonic device and a high-speed diamond rotary cutting system. J Oral Sci 2007;49(3):207-11.
  12. Enamel subsurface damage due to tooth preparation with diamonds. J Dent Res 1997;76(10):1698-706.
  13. Effect of smear layer thickness and pH of self-etching adhesive systems on the bond strength and gap formation to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2005;7(2):117-26.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.