Analysis of Primary and Permanent Molars Prepared with High Speed and Ultrasonic Abrasion Systems

The aim of this study was to compare high speed and ultrasonic systems with regard to both topography and smear layer formation in the cavity preparations of sound primary and permanent molars. Class I occlusal cavities measuring 2.00 x 2.00 x 2.00 mm were performed in 14 molars, equally divided into two groups (GI= 7 primary teeth and GII = 7 permanent teeth). High speed rotary instruments produced regular layers of enamel and dentin, despite the marked presence of grooves and microfractures on enamel surfaces. On the other hand, ultrasonic abrasion yielded more irregular surfaces in enamel and dentin, with a granular and wavy aspect, but without microfractures in enamel. Both types of dental substrates were found to have an intense smear layer formation, partially or even completely obliterating the dentinal tubules (p>0.05), irrespective of the instrument used. No difference was observed in either primary or permanent teeth as regards the amount of smear layer produced by high speed or ultrasonic abrasion instruments (p>0.05). It was concluded that with regard to the topography of cavity preparations, there were differences between the instruments used, irrespective of the dental substrate. Both systems allowed dense smear layer formation, which completely or partially obliterated the dentinal tubules of primary and permanent teeth.

Dental instruments, Cavity preparation, Ultrasound in dentistry, Primary teeth, Permanent teeth. Smear layer

1. Antônio AG, Primo LG, Maia LC. Case report: ultrasonic cavity preparation – an alternative approach for caries removal in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatric Dent 6:1105–108, 2005.

2. Banerjee A, Sheriff M, Kidd EAM. A confocal microscopic study relating the auto-fluorescence of carious dentine to it’s microhardnes. J Br Dent 187: 206–210, 1999.

3. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EAM. Dentine caries excavation: a reviewof current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 188: 476– 482, 2000.

4. Borges CFM, Magne P, Pfender E, Heberlein J. Dental Diamond burs made with a new tecnology. J Prosthet Dent 82: 73–79, 1999.

5. Carvalho CAR, Fagundes TC, Barata TJE, Trava-airoldi VJ, Navarro MFL. The use of CVD diamond burs for ultraconservative cavity preparations: a report of two cases. J Esthet Restor Dent 19: 19–29, 2007

6. Çehreli ZC, Yazici AR, Akca T, Ozgunaltay G. A morphological and micro-tensile bond strength evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive to caries-afected human dentine after four different caries removal techniques. J Dent 31: 429–35, 2003.

7. Horowitz AM. Introduction to the symposium on minimal intervention techniques for caries. J Public Health Dent 56: 133–4, 1996.

8. Kontturi-Narhi V, Markkanem S, Markkanem H. Effects of airpolishing on dental plaque removal and hard tissues as evalatued by scanning electron microscopy. J Periodontol 61: 334–338, 1990.

9. Laird WRE, Walmsley AD. Ultrasound in dentistry. Part 1 - biophysical interactions. J Dent 19: 14–17, 1991.

10. Nosaka K, Suruga Y; Amari, E. Microleakage of composite resin in cavitiesof upper primary molars. Int. J Paediatr Dent 9: 185–194, 1999.

11. Pioch T, Garcia-Gadoy F, Duschener H, Koch MJ, Staehle HJ, Dörfer CE. Effect of cavity preparation instruments (oscillating or rotating) on the composite-dentin interface in primary teeth. Dental Materials 19: 259–263, 2003.

12. Predebon JC, Florio FM, Basting RT. Use of CVDentUS diamond tips for ultrasound in cavity preparation. J Contemp Dent Pract 7:50–8, 2006.

13. Rome WJ, Doran JE, Walker WA. The effectiveness of Gly-Oxide and sodium-hypoclorite in preventing smear layer formaton. J Endod 11: 281–288, 1985.

14. Swift EJ, Perdigão J, Heynann HO. Bonding to enemal and dentin: a brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int 26: 95–110, 1995.

15. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frenchen JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention Dentistry – a review. Int Dent J 50: 1–12, 2000.

16. Wilson PR, Beynon AD Mineralization differences between human deciduous and permanent enamel measured by quantitative microradiography. Arch. Oral Biol. 34: 85–88, 1989.

17. Witch MJ, Haak R, Fritz UB, Noack MJ. Primary preparation of class II cavities with oscillating systems. Am J Dent 15: 21–25, 2002.

18. Yip HK, Samaranaye LP. Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: a review. Clin Oral Investing 2: 148–154, 1998.

19. Youngson C, Grey NJA, Jones JG. In vitro marginal microleakage: Examination of measurement used in assessment. J Dent 18: 142–146, 1990. 52