Discuss Dentistry

Daily forum for dentists

MOD RESTORATIONS

Home › Forums › Endodontics & conservative dentistry › MOD RESTORATIONS

Welcome Dear Guest

To create a new topic please register on the forums. For help contact : discussdentistry@hotmail.com

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • 06/01/2012 at 5:20 pm #15039
    drmithila
    Offline
    Registered On: 14/05/2011
    Topics: 242
    Replies: 579
    Has thanked: 0 times
    Been thanked: 0 times
    Figure 1. Preoperative photo of the failing composite resin restoration in tooth No. 30.
    Figure 2. Protection (Wedge Guard [Triodent Corporation]) of the gingiva and adjacent tooth was placed before the preparation began.
    Figure 3. Bur marks that were observed in the metal (distal) demonstrated damage that may have otherwise occurred on the adjacent tooth surface during preparation.
    Figure 4. Initial removal of the protection shield.

     

    Figure 5. Completed removal.
    Figure 6. A sectional matrix (V3 Ring Sectional Matrix System [Triodent]) was placed.
    Figure 7. Composite resin (KALORE [GC America]) placed in the cavity preparation; the sectional matrices were removed.
    Figure 8. The final restoration; completed with no damage to the adjacent tooth or the gingival structures. (Note: The wave wedges were kept in place until after all of the finishing was completed to facilitate proper interproximal finishing.)
            

    07/01/2012 at 5:50 pm #15045
    DrAnil
    Offline
    Registered On: 12/11/2011
    Topics: 147
    Replies: 101
    Has thanked: 0 times
    Been thanked: 0 times

    It is observed clinically that some years after MOD restoration of molar and premolar teeth, cuspal failures commonly occur. The period between restoration and failure is usually from eight to fifteen years. Evidence has been found, both from observations of fractured cusps and from a mathematical model of an idealized molar tooth, that allows a clear description of the mechanism of these slow failures. Suggested changes in clinical practice are recommended if such failures are to be prevented in the future.

            

    07/01/2012 at 5:51 pm #15046
    DrAnil
    Offline
    Registered On: 12/11/2011
    Topics: 147
    Replies: 101
    Has thanked: 0 times
    Been thanked: 0 times

    The use of an mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) restoration in repairing a large carious lesion depends on many factors. Biomechanical performance is one of the most important. It has been recognized that resistance to restoration failure is not solely a biological concern (e.g. toxicity), but that the cavity shape, dimensions, and the state of stress must all be taken into account. In the present study, a newly developed auto-mesh program was used to generate 30 three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models simulating the biomechanics for multiple factorial design of the MOD gold restoration in a maxillary second premolar. Stress levels were related to individual design factors (e.g. pulpal wall depth [P], isthmus width [W] and interaxial thickness [T]) and to their interactions under the worst physiological scenario: a concentrated bite force acting on lingual cusp with debonded interfaces between cavity walls and restorations. The results showed that enlarging the volume of the MOD cavity significantly increased stresses in enamel but did not intentionally affect stresses in dentin. The alternation of individual design parameters significantly changed the peak stresses (P < 0·05). For all three parameters, except for the width, the peak stress increased as the cavity dimension increased. Stress elevation rate (termed as ‘volumetric stress rate’– stress elevation by increasing one unit volume of the restored materials) was different among three design factors. Depth was the most critical factor governing the stress elevation in enamel (1·76 MPa mm−3) while length (interaxial thickness) was the most important parameter in dentin (0·49 MPa mm−3). Width was the least compromising factor to the remaining tooth, 0·32 MPa mm−3 for enamel and −0·23 MPa mm−3 for dentin. The findings, at its core, did not fully agree with the traditional concept that the preservation of tooth substances will reduce risk of tooth fracture. This study leaves open possibility for the structural optimization of the MOD restoration.

            

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.