FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2009074237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2009074237 endingPage "420" @default.
• W2009074237 startingPage "414" @default.
• W2009074237 abstract "Statement of problem The various clinical techniques available for even reduction of a tooth surface to receive a porcelain veneer restoration do not produce a consistently even conservative reduction. In addition, it is not known which technique is most conservative of enamel. Purpose The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the effectiveness of 3 clinical techniques, namely, dimple, depth groove, and freehand, in producing an intraenamel preparation. The relation between overpreparation beyond the commonly accepted depth of preparation of 0.5 mm and dentin exposure was also examined. Material and methods A single operator prepared 3 groups of 5 extracted maxillary central incisors to a depth of 0.5 mm using dimple, depth-groove, and freehand methods of tooth preparation. The prepared teeth were scanned using an x-ray microtomography scanner. The reconstructed images were studied using software that provided a volume-rendering routine so that, by choosing suitable x-ray linear attenuation coefficient thresholds, enamel (2.78 cm−1 at 40 keV) and dentin (1.63 cm−1 at 40 keV) surfaces could be viewed. The percentage area of enamel conserved was analyzed from these images. Coordinate metrology was used to produce color-coded images depicting the depth of preparation. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine the statistical significance (α=.05) in the difference between the mean percentage area of enamel conserved in the 3 technique groups. The coordinate metrology and x-ray microtomography images were visually compared to study the correlation between overpreparation and dentin exposure. Results The Kruskal-Wallis test did not demonstrate significant difference (P=.07) between the 3 techniques in conserving enamel. However, the dimple technique showed a greater trend to retaining a larger mean percentage area of enamel (77.5% ± 14.2) compared to depth-groove (50.1% ± 17.5) and freehand (76.8% ± 24.4) techniques. Preparation depth in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 mm was largely seen to be intraenamel, except in the cervical region. Conclusion Within the limitations of this pilot study, the 3 different techniques tested did not differ significantly in conserving enamel. The various clinical techniques available for even reduction of a tooth surface to receive a porcelain veneer restoration do not produce a consistently even conservative reduction. In addition, it is not known which technique is most conservative of enamel. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the effectiveness of 3 clinical techniques, namely, dimple, depth groove, and freehand, in producing an intraenamel preparation. The relation between overpreparation beyond the commonly accepted depth of preparation of 0.5 mm and dentin exposure was also examined. A single operator prepared 3 groups of 5 extracted maxillary central incisors to a depth of 0.5 mm using dimple, depth-groove, and freehand methods of tooth preparation. The prepared teeth were scanned using an x-ray microtomography scanner. The reconstructed images were studied using software that provided a volume-rendering routine so that, by choosing suitable x-ray linear attenuation coefficient thresholds, enamel (2.78 cm−1 at 40 keV) and dentin (1.63 cm−1 at 40 keV) surfaces could be viewed. The percentage area of enamel conserved was analyzed from these images. Coordinate metrology was used to produce color-coded images depicting the depth of preparation. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine the statistical significance (α=.05) in the difference between the mean percentage area of enamel conserved in the 3 technique groups. The coordinate metrology and x-ray microtomography images were visually compared to study the correlation between overpreparation and dentin exposure. The Kruskal-Wallis test did not demonstrate significant difference (P=.07) between the 3 techniques in conserving enamel. However, the dimple technique showed a greater trend to retaining a larger mean percentage area of enamel (77.5% ± 14.2) compared to depth-groove (50.1% ± 17.5) and freehand (76.8% ± 24.4) techniques. Preparation depth in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 mm was largely seen to be intraenamel, except in the cervical region. Within the limitations of this pilot study, the 3 different techniques tested did not differ significantly in conserving enamel." @default.
• W2009074237 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2009074237 creator A5022022150 @default.
• W2009074237 creator A5024958550 @default.
• W2009074237 creator A5026449008 @default.
• W2009074237 creator A5068451237 @default.
• W2009074237 creator A5083119202 @default.
• W2009074237 date "2005-11-01" @default.
• W2009074237 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2009074237 title "Dentin exposure in tooth preparations for porcelain veneers: A pilot study" @default.
• W2009074237 cites W1596745883 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2019048736 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2034003051 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2045865176 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2050510660 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2081161607 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2088608429 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2090068032 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2094218459 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2123582305 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2128718755 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2132057024 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2161003866 @default.
• W2009074237 cites W2435114331 @default.
• W2009074237 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.08.016" @default.
• W2009074237 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16275300" @default.
• W2009074237 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2009074237 type Work @default.
• W2009074237 sameAs 2009074237 @default.
• W2009074237 citedByCount "33" @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372012 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372014 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372015 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372016 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372018 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372019 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372020 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372021 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372022 @default.
• W2009074237 countsByYear W20090742372023 @default.
• W2009074237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2009074237 hasAuthorship W2009074237A5022022150 @default.
• W2009074237 hasAuthorship W2009074237A5024958550 @default.
• W2009074237 hasAuthorship W2009074237A5026449008 @default.
• W2009074237 hasAuthorship W2009074237A5068451237 @default.
• W2009074237 hasAuthorship W2009074237A5083119202 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C136229726 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C152327431 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C154020017 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C156887251 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C2779263046 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C105795698 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C136229726 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C152327431 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C154020017 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C156887251 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C159985019 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C192562407 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C199343813 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C2779263046 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C29694066 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C33923547 @default.
• W2009074237 hasConceptScore W2009074237C71924100 @default.
• W2009074237 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2009074237 hasLocation W20090742371 @default.
• W2009074237 hasLocation W20090742372 @default.
• W2009074237 hasOpenAccess W2009074237 @default.
• W2009074237 hasPrimaryLocation W20090742371 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W1547257900 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W198717226 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W2030513719 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W2090320035 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W2138157871 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W2473871700 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W2734945592 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W3021589997 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W3036123221 @default.
• W2009074237 hasRelatedWork W94145630 @default.
• W2009074237 hasVolume "94" @default.
• W2009074237 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2009074237 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2009074237 magId "2009074237" @default.
• W2009074237 workType "article" @default.