Seybold Report ISSN: 1533-9211

Abstract

A RETROSPECTIVE TIME DEPENDENT ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF CAVITY DESIGN MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED FOR REPLACEMENT - A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN UNIVERSITY SETUP


1Priyadharshini.S, 2*Dr Sankeerthana Kolli, 3Dr Adimulapu Hima Sandeep


Vol 17, No 11 ( 2022 )   |  Licensing: CC 4.0   |   Pg no: 2596-2605   |   Published on: 14-11-2022



Abstract
Introduction: Restoration failures occur mainly due to caries recurrence and restoration fractures. Longevity of restoration predominantly depends on the individual's oral hygiene maintenance and risk of caries. Important factor that contributes to the failure of cavity design is the inability to withstand occlusal forces. Posterior teeth were the most commonly reported for replacement. Aim: To analyze the cavity design which was frequently reported for replacement. Materials and methods: The study was carried out from June 2020 to March 2021 on 624 patients ( 301 males and 323 females) who visited Saveetha dental College and Hospitals,Chennai. Data collection included age, gender, type of tooth, type of cavity design and association between these were obtained using Pearson's chi-square test. Results: In this study we observed that the majority of females (51.76%) reported for replacement of restoration compared to that of males. Based on the age categorisation,47.9% patients belonged to the age group of 31-40 years which was the highest. The most common tooth reported for replacement was found to be the lower right first molar. (50.48%). The most common cavity design reported for replacement was found to be class 2 restoration (64.2%) Conclusion: In this study it is seen that patients with dislodged class 2 MO restoration in the left lower first molar frequently reported for replacement. Dental caries play a fundamental role in the quality of restorations. Low risk dental caries and patients who had received guidance on how to maintain oral hygiene were less likely to suffer restoration failure and improved the restorative longevity.


Keywords:
Cavity design, Lower first molar, Restoration, Dental innovation



Download Full Article PDF


Back to Current Issue Page