| 4085 Acceptance of Depth-gauge Burs for the Preparation of Porcelain Veneers | ||
|
M.O. AHLERS, University of Hamburg, School of Dental Medicine, Germany, G. CACHOVAN, University of Hamburg, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, H. JAKSTAT, University of Leipzig, Germany, and U. PLATZER, University of Hamburg, Germany Performance of porcelain veneers depends on adequate preparation, too. Guidelines for this were published by McLaughlin and Morrison (1988). Based on a freehand technique without any orientation aides, results will most likely deviate significantly from the required features, even in experienced dentists (Nattress et al. 1995). Therefore, methods were advocated to achieve a by-the-book preparation, including the orientation grooves (Millar 1987) or depth-gauge burs (Sheets and Taniguchi 1990). Objective: In lack of data on the acceptance of such aides or instruments the aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance of orientation grooves and different kinds of depth gauge burs. Methods: 20 undergraduate dental students participated in a crossover-design-study, involving 3 sets of instruments (“Laminate Veneer Set” [LVS], novel Set Keramik-Veneers.de” [KVD], comparable burs without depth-gauges [CBS], all by Komet/Brasseler, Germany). Participants had no prior experience in preparation of veneers. All participants received the same instruction on the preparation principles. Subsequently, every participant prepared 18 central incisors (3 maxillary + 3 mandibular incisors with each set of instruments), using a soft/hard-tissue simulator (Frasaco/Germany). The sequence of instruments was chosen randomly. Following this, the participants anonymously completed a questionnaire stating their evaluation of perceived accuracy, safety, time-consumption, overall assessment and suitability of the respective instruments (scales (–)5 to (+)5). Data were stratified, medians calculated and evaluated statistically (Mann-Whitney-U-Test). Results: indicated that participants in all criteria preferred depth gauge instruments (medians (+)0,5-(+)4 vs. (–)4-(–)2); e.g., overall suitability was rated better (medians KVD (+)5 / LVS (+)2 vs. CBS (–)3; p=0,0003). Time consumption was evaluated best in KVD (mean (+)3,5) compared to LVS (mean (+)1; p=0,002), which was still superior to CBS (-)2, p=0,001). Conclusion: Inexperienced operators strongly preferred methods based on depth gauge instruments with best results in the novel set of instruments. | ||
| Seq #420 - Post/Core Studies, Preparations, Impression Materials, Biomechanics 12:30 PM-2:30 PM, Saturday, 13 March 2004 Hawaii Convention Center 321-B | ||
|
Back to the Prosthodontics Research Program
| ||