Research Outputs (Oral Health Sciences)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/18776

Browse

Start date: 2003Subject: search.filters.subject.Dental Restoration, Permanent

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How well do fourth year Wits Dental Students place resin composite restorations?
    (2003) Lightfoot, J.; Clarke, F. M.; Grossman, E. S.
    OBJECTIVES:To evaluate, by means of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) the quality of resin composite restorations, placed as a first attempt by fourth-year dental students. METHODS: Ten Class IV direct composite restorations, placed in plaster-mounted extracted incisor teeth as part of pre-clinical course requirements, were selected. Specimens were evaluated and graded on a two-point scale by a staff member according to departmental clinical evaluation criteria. Five restored teeth were prepared for surface evaluation of marginal integrity, surface roughness and contour using SEM. The remaining specimens were embedded in resin and ground down transversely, parallel to the incisal edge until a dentine core was apparent. The ground surfaces were polished, prepared for SEM and assessed for etched layer, placement of bonding agent, composite adaptation and overall consistency. RESULTS: Clinical assessment and SEM surface evaluation correlated favourably for all criteria, except contour, indicating that students were reasonably competent in finishing techniques. Ground samples revealed acceptable etched enamel layers and marginal adaptation. Bonding agent thickness varied between 0 and 200 microns casting doubt on procedural accuracy. Porosities and voids were apparent within the resin composite. Internal features were the main reason for unsatisfactory grades. CONCLUSIONS: Students placed restoration satisfactorily. They would benefit if able to examine sectioned restorations to understand critical placement techniques which would contribute to resin composite restoration success. A research component can be introduced into the dental undergraduate curriculum by way of similar projects linked to didactic course-work.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Spreadability of two glass ionomer cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART)
    (2004) Sindhu, R.; Grossman, E. S.
    'Press finger' in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) is used to spread a glass ionomer cement (GIC) to seal the restoration margin and adjacent pits and fissures. This study compared the spreadability of Fuji IX and Ketac-Molar to establish which was best suited for this purpose. Twenty equally spaced cavities (35 mm apart) were machine-cut in each of two Perspex slabs 200 x 100 x 20 mm. Each cavity was 3 mm deep with a 4 mm diameter. Two V-shaped grooves 1 mm deep were cut to traverse the cavities: one 0.5 mm wide, the other 0.25 mm wide. Equal amounts (0.25 ml) of GIC were dispensed, 20 cavities for Fuji IX and 20 for Ketac-Molar and condensed under light finger pressure using a 20 mm diameter cork thinly coated with petroleum jelly. This allowed the GIC to be condensed into the cavity and spread into the differently sized grooves. The samples were stored in deionised water for 24 hours whereafter the length to which the GIC had spread along each groove from the cavity edge was measured to the closest 0.01 mm. The data were analysed using ANOVA and the unpaired Student's t-test (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the length of spread of the two GICs (t = 2.534; P = 0.013) which was confined to the 0.25 mm width groove (t = 2.83; P = 0.007) with Fuji IX spreading much further along the groove (10.25 +/- 1.17 mm) than Ketac-Molar (7.66 +/- 4.21 mm). Fuji IX appears to be the better sealant material when selecting for spreadability in ART.