IADR Abstract Archives
Replacing Composites Using A New Detection Light Increases Iatrogenic Damage
Objectives: When replacing composite restorations, difficulties may arise identifying the extent of the composite during cavity re-preparation. A new curing light (D-Light Pro, GC) has a composite detection mode to aid the operator in this procedure.
This study investigated whether removal of composite restorations using the detector light reduced iatrogenic cavity enlargement. Iatrogenic damage was defined as removal of excess tooth tissue.
Methods: 30 extracted premolar teeth were scanned using a CEREC Omnicam (Denstply Sirona). 3 dentists each prepared cervical cavities in 10 teeth (CAV1). The cavity preparations were scanned again, then swapped for a different operator to restore with composite. The teeth were swapped again and the final operator removed the composite ready for re-restoration. These re-prepared cavities were scanned (CAV2). In 50% of cases, the operator used the detector light to aid in composite removal. The differences in volume between CAV1 and CAV2 were measured using WearCompare (www.LeedsDigitalDentistry.com). Custom software identified regions in CAV2 that represented iatrogenic tooth removal compared to CAV1. Differences in cavity re-preparation with and without the detector light (L and NL) were recorded. Results were normalised against the initial cavity volume (CAV1).
Results: The mean initial cavity volumes, CAV1, were 6.15±3.60mm3 (L) and 6.32±3.50mm3 (NL) and did not differ significantly (p=0.896).
Mean relative change in cavity volumes for re-prepared cavities (CAV2) were +37.1% (L) and +1.2% (NL). This represented a difference between L and NL of 35.9% (95% CI: -27.6–99.3%, p-value=0.251).
Mean iatrogenic excess tooth removal volumes for CAV2 were 78.6% (L) and 29.1% (NL). This represented a difference between L and NL of 49.6% (95% CI: -4.0–103.1%, p-value=0.068).
Conclusions: Use of a detector light when removing composite restorations led to an increase in iatrogenic tooth removal and cavity volume compared to removal without the detector light, although more data is needed to validate this result.
This study investigated whether removal of composite restorations using the detector light reduced iatrogenic cavity enlargement. Iatrogenic damage was defined as removal of excess tooth tissue.
Methods: 30 extracted premolar teeth were scanned using a CEREC Omnicam (Denstply Sirona). 3 dentists each prepared cervical cavities in 10 teeth (CAV1). The cavity preparations were scanned again, then swapped for a different operator to restore with composite. The teeth were swapped again and the final operator removed the composite ready for re-restoration. These re-prepared cavities were scanned (CAV2). In 50% of cases, the operator used the detector light to aid in composite removal. The differences in volume between CAV1 and CAV2 were measured using WearCompare (www.LeedsDigitalDentistry.com). Custom software identified regions in CAV2 that represented iatrogenic tooth removal compared to CAV1. Differences in cavity re-preparation with and without the detector light (L and NL) were recorded. Results were normalised against the initial cavity volume (CAV1).
Results: The mean initial cavity volumes, CAV1, were 6.15±3.60mm3 (L) and 6.32±3.50mm3 (NL) and did not differ significantly (p=0.896).
Mean relative change in cavity volumes for re-prepared cavities (CAV2) were +37.1% (L) and +1.2% (NL). This represented a difference between L and NL of 35.9% (95% CI: -27.6–99.3%, p-value=0.251).
Mean iatrogenic excess tooth removal volumes for CAV2 were 78.6% (L) and 29.1% (NL). This represented a difference between L and NL of 49.6% (95% CI: -4.0–103.1%, p-value=0.068).
Conclusions: Use of a detector light when removing composite restorations led to an increase in iatrogenic tooth removal and cavity volume compared to removal without the detector light, although more data is needed to validate this result.
