[The effect of 2 finishing methods on the micromorphology of the proximal box margin. An in-vivo study].
Minipreparations of class II cavities often are not employed in daily practice mainly because adequate instruments for finishing the axial box margin and the proximo-cervical curvature were not available. The purpose of this in vivo study was to assess the morphology of the proximal box margin after finishing with two different methods. 81 class II minicavities for amalgam restorations were prepared by 4 dental practitioners. One method for finishing the axial box margin and the proximo-cervical curved border was the use of a modified EVA-System with the total amplitude reduced to 0.4 mm and a highly flexible file (Cavishape, grain 25 microns). The other method was the use of an axial margin trimmer. The micromorphology of the two methods was investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy and a score system as described earlier (Lussi et al. 1987). The margins of the axial box as well as of the proximo-cervical curvature were significantly better finished with the EVA-System and the highly flexible file compared to the axial margin trimmer (p < 0.001). The finishing time for the box margin was not significantly different using the EVA instrument or the axial margin trimmer. These findings confirm other in vitro investigations. This in vivo study shows that the modified EVA instrument with the highly flexible file (Cavishape, grain 25 microns) is clearly superior to the axial margin trimmer in finishing the box margin. This device allowed a significant better finishing of the axial box margin and the proximo-cervical curvature of minicavities in daily practice.