Literature DB >> 8511270

Tunnel restorations versus class II restorations for small proximal lesions: a comparison of tooth strengths.

J Papa1, C Cain, H H Messer, P R Wilson.   

Abstract

An increased emphasis on the preservation of tooth structure has led to alternative cavity designs for early proximal caries. The tunnel restoration (which preserves the marginal ridge) and a conservative Class II composite resin restoration were compared in vitro for effects on tooth strength with nondestructive and destructive tests. The tunnel restoration, which is generally thought to be the more conservative of the two techniques, was actually more damaging, as shown by the stiffness, load at fracture, and proximity to the pulp.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8511270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quintessence Int        ISSN: 0033-6572            Impact factor:   1.677


  2 in total

Review 1.  Restoring proximal caries lesions conservatively with tunnel restorations.

Authors:  Chun-Hung Chu; May L Mei; Chloe Cheung; Romesh P Nalliah
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2013-07-30

2.  Class II resin composite restorations-tunnel vs. box-only in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Peter J Preusse; Julia Winter; Stefanie Amend; Matthias J Roggendorf; Marie-Christine Dudek; Norbert Krämer; Roland Frankenberger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 3.573

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.