Cavity design and dimensions of tunnel preparations versus composite resin Class-II preparations

Tunnel Restoration: A Minimally Invasive Dentistry Practice

With advances in technology, dentists nowadays manage dental caries with the philosophy of minimally invasive dentistry. Dental restoration is now performed most conservatively with minimal destruction of tooth structure when operative dentistry is indicated. Some operative dentists suggested using tunnel restoration for treating proximal caries as a conservative alternative to the conventional box preparation. The main advantage of tunnel restoration over the conventional box or slot preparation includes being more conservative and increasing tooth integrity and strength by preserving the marginal ridge. However, tunnel restoration is technique sensitive and requires advanced operative skills. Tunnel restoration can be an option to restore proximal caries if the dentist selects the proper case and pays attention to the details of the restorative procedures. With the dentist's advanced training, advanced light-emitting diode handpieces, magnifying loupes, precise digital imaging and new generation restorative materials, good results can be obtained in selected cases. This study reviews the literature on tunnel restoration and provides updated techniques and clinical data that can be used in tunnel restoration to oversee its limitations and the perspective on restorative treatment.

Conservative Composite Resin Restoration for Proximal Caries - Two Case Reports

The paradigms of contemporary caries management have shifted to minimal intervention dentistry. Conservative restorative procedures are recommended to replace the complete removal of all carious tissues in the management of dental caries. This article reports two clinical cases of conservative restorations of proximal caries. Different conservative cavity designs and restorative techniques were performed in the two cases. Proximal caries in posterior teeth were prepared using the box-only preparation technique or the proximal tunnel preparation technique. The cavities were restored directly with resin composites. The advantages of using the box-only preparation with fissure sealant included the maximum conservation of tooth hard tissues and the prevention of unnecessary tissue removal in the occlusal surface. The tunnel preparation preserved the marginal ridge and protected the restored tooth from fracture. The filling of composites into the tunnel demonstrated a better marginal adaptation than other restorative materials. These two techniques allowed for the preservation of more healthy dental hard tissue compared with traditional techniques. Potential problems in the restoration included the high incidence of the inappropriate removal of dental hard tissue, damage of the vital pulp and the microleakage due to the polymerization shrinkage. The solutions to minimize the risk of these problems in the operative procedures were discussed.

Restoring proximal caries lesions conservatively with tunnel restorations

The tunnel restoration has been suggested as a conservative alternative to the conventional box preparation for treating proximal caries. The main advantage of tunnel restoration over the conventional box or slot preparation includes being more conservative and increasing tooth integrity and strength by preserving the marginal ridge. However, tunnel restoration is technique-sensitive and can be particularly challenging for inexperienced restorative dentists. Recent advances in technology, such as the contemporary design of dental handpieces with advanced light-emitting diode (LED) and handheld comfort, offer operative dentists better vision, illumination, and maneuverability. The use of magnifying loupes also enhances the visibility of the preparation. The advent of digital radiographic imaging has improved dental imaging and reduced radiation. The new generation of restorative materials has improved mechanical properties. Tunnel restoration can be an option to restore proximal caries if the dentist performs proper case selection and pays attention to the details of the restorative procedures. This paper describes the clinical technique of tunnel restoration and reviews the studies of tunnel restorations.

Modified matrix band design for ultra-conservative posterior restorations

Conventional box preparations, tunnel cavities and slot preparations have been recommended for the treatment of proximal carious lesions over the years. If the adjacent tooth is missing or the proximal surface becomes accessible at the time of cavity preparation of the adjacent tooth, a direct proximal access to the decay process can be performed. A similar procedure is supported by the use of adhesive composite restorations reinforcing the remaining sound tooth structure. The increasing patient and clinician's desire for ultraconservative treatment justifies this minimally invasive tooth preparation approach; however, appropriate materials and techniques need to be selected to achieve adequate bonding of the cavity walls and marginal adaptation of the composite.

Conservative operative management strategies

Operative conservatism, including delayed operative intervention, is recommended to promote tooth longevity. Effective conservative operative strategies for the permanent dentition are the occlusal preventive resin and the proximal only restoration. Conservative strategies for the primary dentition have proves less successful. Conventional and conservative restorations are vulnerable to caries recurrence, material failure, and technical deficiencies. Successful conservatism demands discerning diagnostic decisions, effective disease management, and technical excellence. The diagnostic accuracy of radiographs and visual criteria is briefly reviewed for proximal and occlusal caries. Improved visual ranking criteria are supported for occlusal caries diagnosis. The use of dyes for occlusal diagnosis is not recommended.

Minimal intervention dentistry--a review. FDI Commission Project 1-97

The concept of minimal intervention dentistry has evolved as a consequence of our increased understanding of the caries process and the development of adhesive restorative materials. It is now recognised that demineralised but noncavitated enamel and dentine can be 'healed', and that the surgical approach to the treatment of a caries lesion along with 'extension for prevention' as proposed by G V Black is no longer tenable. This paper gives an overview of the concepts of minimal intervention dentistry, describes suggested techniques for a minimally invasive operative approach, and reviews clinical studies which have been carried out in this area.

A 3-year clinical study of tunnel restorations

Tunnel restorations (n = 161) performed by 4 dentists were evaluated after a mean of 35 months in situ. Demineralized enamel was to be spared during preparation. The preparations were filled with a cermet glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cement. Evaluation was carried out using clinical and radiographical criteria. During the observation period, approximately 16% of the restorations were replaced due to caries in dentin and 14% due to marginal ridge fracture. Cavitation in the approximal surface and/or increased radiolucency of the approximal enamel were observed in 34% of the remaining tunnel-restored teeth. A significantly higher frequency of failures were registered when treating patients with a high caries activity, where the initial lesion was large, and where the restoration did not reach the approximal surface.

Review of dental materials citations: Part B, July to December 1995

OBJECTIVE

A lag of many months occurs between journal issue publication and updates to electronic databases. The objective of this literature analysis was to identify and categorize all of the dental materials citations in biomedical journals that were published from July 1995 through December 1995.

METHODS

Seventeen primary and 51 secondary journals were searched using their tables of contents to detect and record dental materials publications from July to December of 1995. Those journals that were typically rich in dental materials articles were classified as primary ones. Citations were categorized into 17 topics and divided into subsections. The review excluded case reports, most literature related primarily to dental implants, and most articles on biomedical materials used outside of the field of general dentistry.

RESULTS

The greatest number of citations was related to topics of dentin bonding and resin-based restorative filling materials (composites and glass ionomers). There was no major change in the number of dental materials publications per year reported from 1993 (n = 786) to 1995 (n = 751).

SIGNIFICANCE

This citation list provides a comprehensive resource for use by academicians and researchers to bridge the gap between initial publication and access to electronic searching methods for major databases.