PROPOSAL

Strength of bond design in Dovetail class three design and Slot for composite restoration

[Name of the Institute]

Strength of bond design in Dovetail class three design and Slot for composite restoration

Introduction

The concept of composite restorations has been a boon to improving the esthetic value of restoration of destroyed tooth structure. The success of restoring primary teeth depends on far more than the physical characteristics of the material used. The restorative therapy in this age group is influenced by various parameters such as:- degree of patient co-operation, isolation techniques possible, difference in primary tooth anatomy and the lifespan of the tooth. A lot of research has been conducted regarding the clinical characteristics of composite restorations. It is important to note that most of the long-term evaluator studies have been performed on permanent teeth (Qvist, 1993, pp. 253).

There are various in vitro studies available to evaluate the bonding mechanism of these restorations to primary teeth. Certain authors have suggested the use of additional means of secondary retention in class III preparations of primary anterior teeth. These features of retention range from labial veneering, dovetail preparations and labial and lingual lock and grooves. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics of the slot and dovetail design in class III restorations with composite resin. These findings will be a step forward in the dual aim of conserving tooth structure and also ensuring good retention of anterior composite restorations in primary teeth (Trairatvorakul, 2004, pp.125).

The class III restoration is nominally a “one-surface” restoration on the proximal contacting surface of the tooth. It is generally formed with composite resin or ionomer cement. Class III restorations are consistent with the philosophy of “minimal invasion,” as the only healthy tooth structure that is removed is that necessary for access to caries and retention of the restorative material. Retention is generally provided by small internal undercuts in the dentin and/or bonding of composite resin to etched bevels of the peripheral enamel.

Prior to the development of composite resin and acid-etch techniques, proximal tooth-colored restorations were made with silicate cement, and they were restricted to anterior lesions mesial to the midline of the cuspid. Proximal lesions on the distal of the cuspids and the posterior teeth were generally treated with class II metal restorations. This was thought necessary in order to prevent excessive mesial drift of the posterior teeth that would likely occur as silicate cement slowly dissolved over time (Qvist, 1993, pp. 253).

Research Aims and Objectives

To determine whether composite resins have been traditionally noted to have decreased bonding ability to primary teeth or not

Composite resins have been traditionally noted to have decreased bonding ability to primary teeth.

As the dovetail form necessitates further cutting of the tooth structure, it may be viewed as an unnecessary aid for secondary retention

Background of the Study

The esthetic restorations of primary anterior teeth have always occupied an important part of the pediatric dentist's armamentarium. Various materials have been tried for this purpose and ample materials have been researched in an attempt to ...