We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 24 (1993), No. 2     1. Feb. 1993
Quintessence Int 24 (1993), No. 2  (01.02.1993)

Page 93-98


Tunnel restoration versus Class II restorations for small proximal lesions: A comparison of tooth strengths
Papa / Cain / Messer / Wilson
An increased emphasis on the preservation of tooth structure has led to alternative cavity designs for early proximal caries. The tunnel restoration (which preserves the marginal ridge) and a conservative Class II composite resin restoration were compared in vitro for effects on tooth strength with nondestructive and destructive tests. The tunnel restoration, which is generally thought to be the more conservative of the two techniques, was actually more damaging, as shown by the stiffness, load at fracture, an d proximity to the pulp.