The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Minimally Invasive Dentistry Using Sonic and Ultra-sonic Devices in Ultraconservative Class 2 Restorations

Hervé Tassery, Stephen Koubi

Citation Information : Tassery H, Koubi S. Minimally Invasive Dentistry Using Sonic and Ultra-sonic Devices in Ultraconservative Class 2 Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):155-165.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-2-155

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Within the context of minimally invasive dentistry this article describes the sonic and ultrasonic cavity preparation techniques and assesses their advantages and disadvantages, clinical difficulties of their use, and offers a statement about these devices.

Background

Ultra-conservative Class 2 restorative techniques require the use of devices such as sonic and the new ultrasonic preparation systems. These systems, featuring a series of sonic and new ultra-sonic inserts, allow for the fabrication of preventive preparations on proximal surfaces without injuring the adjacent proximal surface or damaging the marginal ridge.

Review

An ultraconservative approach to the restoration of teeth with proximal caries that lack frank occlusal cavitation is facilitated by the use of slot-style cavity preparations created with sonic and ultrasonic instrumentation, and esthetic restorative materials.

Summary

New restorative procedures appear suitable for use in ultraconservative restorative dentistry. More frequent use of these procedures by dental practitioners could prevent the traditional breakdown of the marginal ridge when preparing a Class 2 dental restoration. When cautiously used, these two ultraconservative devices provide alternative operative procedures to treat carious lesions without frank occlusal cavitation and to promote another aspect of preventive dentistry.

Clinical Significance

New restorative procedures appear suitable for use in ultraconservative restorative dentistry. More frequent use of these procedures by dental practitioners could prevent the traditional breakdown of the marginal ridge when preparing a Class 2 dental restoration.

Citation

Koubi S, Tassery H. Minimally Invasive Dentistry Using Sonic and Ultra-sonic Devices in Ultraconservative Class 2 Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:155-165.


PDF Share
  1. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 4: Dental caries-Characteristics of lesions and pulpal reactions. Quintessence Int 2001; 32:717-36.
  2. In: Diagnosis and risk prediction of dental caries, Vol 2. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, 1999.
  3. Dynamic factors affecting lesion initiation and progression in human dental. The dynamic nature of enamel caries. Quintessence Int 1988; 19:683-711.
  4. A clinical, microbiologic, and radiographic study of deep caries lesions after incomplete caries removal. Quintessence Int 2001; 33:151-9.
  5. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: Result at year 10. JADA 1998; 129:55-66.
  6. A revised classification of carious lesions by site and size. Quintessence Int 1997; 28:301-3.
  7. In vivo diagnostic assessment of dentinal caries by junior and senior students using red acid dye. Eur J Dent Educ 2001; 5:38-42.
  8. Reduction in tooth stiffness as the results of endodontic or restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15: 512-6.
  9. Do condensable composite help to achieve better proximal contacts?. Dent Mat 2001; 17:533-41.
  10. In vitro assessment of polymerization procedures in class II restorations: Sealing, FTIR, and micro-hardness evaluations. J Adhesive Dent 2001; 3:247-255.
  11. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite class 2 cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001; 26:60-9.
  12. A clinical evaluation of classII composites placed using a decoupling technique. J Adhesive Dent 2000;2:319-29.
  13. A light curing method for improving marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of resin composite restorations. Dent Mat 2001; 17:359-66.
  14. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhesive Dent 2001; 3:295-308.
  15. preparation and restoration of small interproximal carious lesions with sonic instruments. Pract Periodontis Aesthet Dent 1998; 10:353-9.
  16. Minimally Invasive Dentistry- Concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003; 1:59-72.
  17. Effect of 2% chlorhexidine on microtensile bond strength of composite to denite. J Adhes Dent 2003; 5:129-38.
  18. In vitro of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res 2000; 34:144-50.
  19. The influence of Carisolv on the enamel and dentin surface topography. Eur J Oral Sci 1999; 107:297-306.
  20. In: An introduction to risk prediction and preventive dentistry. Others caries-preventive factors. Chapter 7. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, 1999:77-105.
  21. A technique for the removal of restoration overhangs and finishing and polishing of restoration and preparation margins. Quintessence Int 2001;32:801-4.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.