CLASS 1CAVITY

DEFINITION:

CLASS 1 CAVITY
CAVITY PREPARATION PRINCIPLES

1. EXTERNAL OUTLINE FORM:

Should include all caries
Removal of discoloured tooth structure
Prepared enamel margin 90 degree or greater
Giving bevel where ever required
Pulpal no uniform depth
No roundening of line angles needed
2. RETENTION:

Micromechanical retention
Mechanical undercut when margins terminate into cement

ADVANTAGES OF BEVELING

Increase in surface area because stronger enamel to resin bond

Ends of enamel rods are etched
Esthetic blending due to cavosurface
CAVITY DESIGNS

 Conventional -m
 Beveled conventional
 Modified
 Box shape
 Facial/lingual slot
WHY USE BASE ?

 To prevent further irritation of the dento-pulpal tissues

 To improve the defensive capability of the dento-pulpal tissues
 Serve as barrier against thermal,chemical and leakage
CONSIDERATION
 Condition of the tooth to be restored
 Amount of remaining dentin thickness
 A 0.5 mm rdt reduces the effect of toxin by 75%, a 1mm reduces by 90%
 Type of restoration to be used
 BASE MATERIALS

CAVITY VARNISH CAVITY SEALERS CAVITY LINERS CAVITY BASES

 ADHESIVE BONDING SYSTEM CALCIUM HYDROXIDE ZOE
 RESIN LUTING CEMENT TYPE III GIC GIC
TYPE IV ZOE RMGI
MTA ZINC PHOSPHATE

use under amalgam

Contraindication: direct resin composites

gic
CAVITY LINERS
DYCAL-CALCIUM HYDROXIDE :
INDICATION:
 Direct pulp capping
 Indirect pulp capping
 Used in deepest portion of cavity preparation
DISADVANTAGE :
 Highly soluble in water
 Marginal leakage
 Should not etch
CALCICUR
 Ready to use radiopaque water based calcium hydroxide
INDICATION:

 Direct pulp capping

 Indirect pulp capping
 When pupotomy is performed
 Lining of cavities to prevent exposure to acid media
THERACAL LC
 It is a light cured resin modified calcium silicate filled liner
 Used for direct and indirect pulp capping
 Used as protective liner under composite,amalgam
 It is used as a replacement for calcium hydroxide,gic,RMGI, ZOE
 It consist of tri calcium silicate particles in a hydrophilic monomer
 It releases calcium which makes it uniquely stable and
durable material
 Calcium release stimulates dentine bridge formation
RESIN MODIFIED GIC

 It has composite like esthetics and is immediately packable

 Better longevity
 Does not require dentine conditioning
 Low water solubility
 Used as base
 High translucency
 Used as dentin substitute
 Used as sealants
 Used in sandwich technique
IONOSEAL
 It is light cure gic composite
 Ideal liner for amalgam,composite restoration
 Extended fissure sealing
 fluoride realease against fluoride release
 High biocompatiblity
MATERIAL USED OF RESTORATION
 COMPOSITE
 GIC
 AMALGAM
 CENTION N
COMPOSITE
FLOWABLE COMPOSITE:
INDICATION:
 Preventive resin restoration
 Bonding orthodontic braces
 Splinting
 Minimal invasive technique
 Fissure sealent
PACKABLE COMPOSITE:
INDICATION:
 CLASS I,II,III,IV,V
 CORE BUILDUP
 ESTHETIC ENHANCEMENT PROCEDURES
 NON CARIOUS LESION
CONTRAINDICATON:
 ISOLATION
 SUBGINGIVAL/ROOT SURFACE
 POOR ORAL HYGIENE
DISADVANTAGE:
 POLYMERIZATION SHRINKAGE
 TECHNIQUE SENSITIVE
 STAINING
 LACK OF ANTICARIOGENIC PROPERTY

CLINICAL CONSIDERATION:
 Adhesive bonding permits removal of less tooth structure
 Requires well controlled field
 Very little tolerance to moisture
GLASS IONOMER
GIC FUJI IX: A conventional self curing gic
INDICATION:
 Ideal of permanent class i and class ii restorations
 Delayed sandwich technique
 Class v and root surface restorations
 Long term Temporary
ADVANTAGES:
 Easy to use
 Intrinsic adhesion-without need for etching and bonding
 Excellent biocompatibility
 Single step
 Thermal expansion similar to tooth
GIC EQUIE FORTE
 It is glass hybrid innovation
 Bulk fill
 Not technique sensitive
 Optimal marginal seal that offers long term resistance to micro leakage
 High fluoride release
 Resistance to wear
 Moisture tolerant
 Improved strength over other gic
CENTION N

 It is a radiopaque,self curing material with light curing option

 Releases fluoride,calcium and hydroxide ions
 Use without adhesive in class I and ii cavities with retentive preparation
CONTRAINDICATION:
 If a dry working field cannot be established
SIDE EFFECTS:
 In rare cases it may cause sensitivity
 Calcium hydroxide is the suitable cavity liner
INTERACTION:
 Eugenol/clove oil must not be used in conjunction with cention N
 Discolouration may occur in combination with cationic mouth wash,
plaque disclosing agent and chlorexidine
 Study to evaluate hardness of four restorative material
 nanohybrid composite resin
Type ii gic
Amalgam
Cention N
 Shows among all restorative material cention N showed highest microhardness
 International journal of advanced research
 Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative material an in vitro study
LONGEVITY OF RESTORATION IN POSTERIOR TEETH
 Study shows annual failure of
 amalgam restoration:0%-7%
Direct composite:0%-9%
Glass ionomer:1.4%-14.4%
 Longevity of restoration depends on different factors
 Principle reason for failure is secondary caries , fracture, marginal deficiency
 Journal of adhesive dentistry
 IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences
 Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of DentalAmalgam, Z350 Composite
Resin and Cention-N Restoration
 The results of this study (table 1) showed that Cention-N material has the highest
fracture resistance
 when compared to the other restorative materials. The results indicate that teeth
restored with amalgam exhibited inferior numerical values of fracture resistance in
relation to the groups restored with Z350 composite
 In conclusion, within the limitation of this study, under compression loading, the use of
Cention-N and Z350 restorative materials significantly strengthen teeth after Class II
cavity preparation and restoration but
 dental amalgam showed comparatively inferior results.
 INTERNATION ASSOCIATION OF DENTAL RESEARCH
 clinical evaluation of an amalgam replacement restorative material
 OBJECTIVE: TO COMPARE CENTION N ( TP AMALAGAM WITH AND
WITHOUT ADHESIVE)
 38 patients (115 restorations) were evaluated at 6-month recall
 Two restorative failures occurred. One Cention N restoration (without adhesive)
was replaced due to debonding (minimal retentive slot preparation in bruxing
patient). Another Cention N restoration (with adhesive) was replaced due to
hypersensitivity.
 The results were largely similar to the amalgam (Valiant) restorations. Cention N
with and without adhesive performed similarly but the restorations with adhesive
tended to slightly higher scores.