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 23 (1992), No. 11     1. Nov. 1992
Quintessence Int 23 (1992), No. 11  (01.11.1992)

Page 763-767


Restoration quality in relation to wedge-mediated light channeling
Lutz / Krejci / Barbakow
Thirty large mesio-occlusodistal cavities with their margins totally in enamel were restored using the three-sited light-curing technique in five different ways: group I = Mark I version of a light-reflecting wedge; groups 2 and 3 = i nterproximal curing with transparent, nonreflecting wedges; groups 4 and 5, Mark II version of the light-reflectin g wedge with increased resiliency. In groups 3 and 5, the light that was not conducted by the transparent wedges was shielded by a piece of aluminum foil. It was found that, when used directly and unshielded, both Mark I and Mark II versions of the light-reflecting wedge induced significantly better marginal adaptation than the transparent, nonreflecting wedge, especially gingivoproximally. With both the nonreflecting and reflecting wedges, the shielding had no effect on the overall percentage of excellent margin. However, gingivoproximally, the shielding significantly improv ed the marginal quality in the nonreflecting wedge groups, leading to the conclusion that the first increment should be cured as throughly as possible from a gingivoproximal direction, preferably indirectly via light-conducting wedges. Direct irradiation from a lingual or buccal direction is less favorable.