Term
|
Definition
Appropriate Indications
Bonding
Clinical Techniques
Dental materials
Evidence based |
|
|
Term
| in 2005, 166 million restorations were placed. what percent were composite and what percent amalgam? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In what yr did composite become more used than amalgam |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Practice based Research in Oral Health |
|
|
Term
| in the 07 Hilton PROH survey what was the risk of crack by restoration type vs. virgin tooth for amal and comp |
|
Definition
7.72 for amalgam
4.05 for composite |
|
|
Term
| In the 97 research studies, what was the reason difference in survival between amal and comp |
|
Definition
| secondary caries- 3.5 x greater for composite |
|
|
Term
| In the 07 5 yr study both materials showed higher failure rate when what? |
|
Definition
| the restorations were larger |
|
|
Term
| the 07 10 yr and 12 yr studies showed what? |
|
Definition
| amal had around 2/2.5 AFR and composite had 1.7 failure rate |
|
|
Term
| the 07 study showed what about caries risk? |
|
Definition
for high caries risk grp- amal had longer longevity for 3 surface restoration, and equal longevity for 4/5 surface restorations.
in the low risk grp- composite had longer longevity always |
|
|
Term
| ideal indications for posterior composites |
|
Definition
1) not allergic
2) demonstrates good hygiene
3)esthetic of prime importance
4) B/L width less than 1/3 in intercuspal distance
5)centric stop on sound enamel
6)no bruxism or heavy occlusal contacts
7)gingival margin on intact enamel
8) able to isolate with rubber dam |
|
|
Term
| what percent of schools agree what about percent of contraindications for posterior composties? |
|
Definition
| 75% of schools agree about 25% of contraindications |
|
|
Term
| what did studies show concerning amal vs composite conservation of tooth structure |
|
Definition
| amalgam occupied 25% of occlusal surface vs 5% for composite |
|
|
Term
| what did studies show about left behind caries with a composite restoration |
|
Definition
| caries would not progress under a sealed restoration- you get an immediate seal with etching, a seal after 5 yrs without etching |
|
|
Term
| in the 70s and 80s what was the primary cause of posterior composite failure? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| what is the primary cause of posterior composites now? |
|
Definition
| loss of marginal integrity |
|
|
Term
| marginal deterioration is a significant predictor of restoration failure- numbers |
|
Definition
loss or marginal integrity @ 3 yrs = 5.3 x failure at 5 yrs
marginal discoloration @ 3 yrs = 3.8 x failure at 5 yrs
both @ 3 yrs= 8.7 x by 5 yrs |
|
|
Term
| contraindication for posterior composites |
|
Definition
1) restoration should not be placed on supporting cusp
2) large restorations in patients with a lot of parafunction on the resotration
3)non compliant patients at high caries risk
4)inability to obtain field isolation by any method |
|
|
Term
| in vivo degradation of resin - dentin bonds |
|
Definition
| bond of resin to dentin- went down by 50% each yr in the mouth |
|
|
Term
how do the failure rates compare for age 18-54 between amal and comp?
ages 55-96? |
|
Definition
| equal for 18-54, composite had greater failure for those aged 55-96 |
|
|
Term
| life expectancy of composites is dependent on? |
|
Definition
case selection
operator technique and training
patient hygiene and habits |
|
|
Term
| kes to success for posterior composites |
|
Definition
1) appropriate indications
2) prep design- pre wedging and caries removel
3)glass ionomer liner to reduce post op sensitivity
4)apply adhesive system correctly
5)matrix (contoured sectional) for contour and contact
6) inject composite to decrease voids
7)incremental placement
8)polymerize class 2s from proximal
9)minimize and delay rotary instrument finishing
3) |
|
|
Term
| avoid sharp line angles- why? |
|
Definition
sharp line angles- crack initiators
bad adaptation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| occlusal- no proximal- if not already obtuse gingival- if over 1mm from CEJ |
|
|
Term
| sectional matrices give whaT? |
|
Definition
significantly stronger prox. contacts
proximal contacts that maintain pre-restoration levels vs circumferential matrix in class 2 restorations
significantly stronger marginal ridge strength |
|
|
Term
| what percent voids do the diff methods of placing composite give? |
|
Definition
condense- 2.5%
smearl- 1.4
inject- .6% |
|
|
Term
| how long does it take composite to warm up in the calSet and how long does it take to cool down in the prep? |
|
Definition
| 11 mins to get to Tmax, composite takes 11 mins to get to Tmax in unit, composite cools to T1/2 in 2 mins |
|
|
