IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of experienced clinicians to determine precise interproximal contacts
Objectives: Complete seating of a single crown may not be possible if the interproximal contacts are too tight. This can lead to open margins, inflammation of the gingival tissue, and recurent dental caries. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of three different methods used for evaluating interproximal contacts when seating a single crown.
Methods: Twenty restorative dentists practicing in Lincoln, Nebraska and the surrounding areas were polled to determine the most common methods of checking interproximal fit of crowns. These dentists then evaluated the interproximal contacts of eleven all-zirconia crowns using three different methods: floss and an explorer, Accufilm articulating paper, and shim stock on a dentoform. The fit of the crowns were checked using one method at a time before materials were switched and the next method was evaluated. Each crown was recorded as either accept or reject without chairside modification. All data collected was analyzed using a chi-square test.
Results: See Table 1
Conclusions: Of the twenty restorative dentists polled 18 identified floss and explorer, 8 identified accufilm and 2 identified shim stock as their method of evaluating interproximal contacts independently or in conjunction with other methods. Significant differences were found between shim stock and accufilm (p = 0.02767) as well as shim stock and floss/explorer (p = 0.00004). Shim stock is a more sensitive measure of interproximal contacts than are either accufilm or floss/explorer.
Methods: Twenty restorative dentists practicing in Lincoln, Nebraska and the surrounding areas were polled to determine the most common methods of checking interproximal fit of crowns. These dentists then evaluated the interproximal contacts of eleven all-zirconia crowns using three different methods: floss and an explorer, Accufilm articulating paper, and shim stock on a dentoform. The fit of the crowns were checked using one method at a time before materials were switched and the next method was evaluated. Each crown was recorded as either accept or reject without chairside modification. All data collected was analyzed using a chi-square test.
Results: See Table 1
Conclusions: Of the twenty restorative dentists polled 18 identified floss and explorer, 8 identified accufilm and 2 identified shim stock as their method of evaluating interproximal contacts independently or in conjunction with other methods. Significant differences were found between shim stock and accufilm (p = 0.02767) as well as shim stock and floss/explorer (p = 0.00004). Shim stock is a more sensitive measure of interproximal contacts than are either accufilm or floss/explorer.