Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8941841

Passive wedge.

M A Cueto Suárez·J M Peña López·A Fernández Terán·M A Villa Vigil
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The article describes a new technique for fabricating a wedge directly in the mouth during clinical procedures. It is called a passive wedge because it is kind to the soft tissues, exerting neither compression nor traction on them. A conventional rigid wedge may hurt the interdental papilla, initiating bleeding and the flow of fluids through the rubber dam. This new technique is very useful during adhesive procedures, because the wedge prevents moisture from invading the working area and the cavity, maintains the matrix in place, and causes no harm to the soft tissues, allowing the restoration to be finished properly.

Explore related subjects

Dental InstrumentsDental Restoration, PermanentEquipment DesignHumansMatrix BandsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M A Cueto Suárez, J M Peña López, A Fernández Terán, M A Villa Vigil. 1996. Passive wedge.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8941841/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Dental diamond burs made with a new technology.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional diamond burs show several limitations such as the heterogeneity of grain shapes, the difficulty of automation during fabrication, the decrease of cutting effectiveness due to repeated sterilization, and short lifetime. An additional shortcoming may be represented by the potential release of Ni+2 ions from the metallic binder into the body fluids. PURPOSE: This study investigated a new diamond rotative instrument made of a continuous diamond film obtained by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). This bur, characterized by a pure diamond cutting surface without metallic binder between crystals, was compared with a conventional diamond bur. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cutting tests were followed by SEM examination and electron microprobe analysis (EMA) to trace metallic residues both at the surface of the bur and the substrate. RESULTS: EMA demonstrated that the metals Ni, Cr, Si, and Fe were present in the metallic binder matrix of the conventional bur and could be smeared on the surface of the substrate during cutting. SEM showed that significant loss of diamond particles occurred during cutting. On the other hand, no discrete particles sheared off the CVD bur. The smearing of the metallic binder cannot occur using the new bur. CONCLUSION: The new CVD bur not only proves to be more efficient in its cutting ability and longevity, but also excludes the risk of metal contamination. This last aspect concerns both the pollution of the oral environment and the contamination of the ceramic during the laboratory manufacturing of dental restorations.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed1999

Innovative uses for hypodermic needles in endodontics.

Hypodermic needles have sharp cutting edges along their bevels. These can be used to enlarge canal openings and to cut around a broken instrument or other object to be removed. Means of attaching the needle to such foreign objects for removal are discussed.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed1999

An in vitro assessment of the dentine lost during instrumentation using the Periosonic system.

This study investigated the ability of a new instrument designed for root debridement, the Periosonic, to remove dentine compared to a hand curette and an ultrasonic scaler. The Periosonic system is a modification of the Micro-Megax endodontic system and uses modified files to remove plaque, calculus and tooth substance. The Periosonic has 2 file types; the Periosonic 1 is a more aggressive file for the removal of gross supra- and subgingival deposits, while the Periosonic 2 is a thinner more flexible file used for the removal of subgingival deposits. 40 human dentine specimens were ground flat and baseline measurements were made using a surfometer. The specimens were divided into 4 experimental groups and each group was treated with a hand curette, ultrasonic scaler, Periosonic 1 or 2 using 12, 1-s strokes. The specimens were remeasured blind in the surfometer. The curette removed 23.6 microm of dentine, the ultrasonic 6.8 microm, the Periosonic 1 18.8 microm and the Periosonic 2 12.5 microm. A qualitative assessment of the samples following mechanical preparation was also made. In conclusion, the Periosonic instrument does not remove more tooth substance than a conventional curette and may be a useful addition for the debridement of root surfaces.

Dental Instruments↗