Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791792
Original Article

The Effect of Magnification on the Quality of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations and the Adjacent Sound Enamel: An In Vitro Study

Hemant Ramesh Chourasia 
1   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Kulashekar Reddy Nandalur 
2   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Arwa Daghrery 
1   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar 
1   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Yazeed Khormi 
3   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdullah Ibrahim Tawhari 
3   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Waleed Hassan Kariri 
3   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed at comparatively assessing the effect of different magnification levels on the immediate postoperative quality of class I direct posterior composite restorations and the adjacent sound enamel.

Materials and Methods Following the modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails (CONSORT) guidelines for in vitro studies, 30 noncarious maxillary human molars were selected. Standardized class I tooth preparation was done in all the teeth. They were randomly divided into three groups: unaided vision, magnifying loupe (3× magnification), and dental operating microscope (7.5× magnification). Each group underwent direct composite restoration, and the restored samples were evaluated for anatomic contour, surface texture, marginal integrity, excess material, and scratching of the adjacent sound enamel.

Statistical analysis The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the post-hoc Mann-Whitney test were employed.

Results Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in anatomic contour, surface texture, marginal integrity, or excess material among the three groups. However, a notable difference was observed in the scratching of adjacent sound enamel, with the unaided vision group exhibiting significantly higher levels than the microscope group (p = 0.022).

Conclusion Direct composite restorations performed without magnification resulted in significantly higher adjacent sound enamel scratching than microscope-assisted procedures. The use of a dental operating microscope may minimize this risk, emphasizing its potential benefits in composite restorations.

Keywords

direct composite restorations - dental loupes - dental operating microscope - magnification


Publication History

Article published online:
04 October 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Miglani S. Burden of dental caries in India: current scenario and future strategies. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (02) 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bhardwaj VK, Negi N, Fotedar S, Kaundal JR. Does the nature of diet consumed have an association with the prevalence of dental caries?. Eur J Gen Dent 2013; 2 (03) 332
    Thieme ConnectSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Warreth A. Dental caries and its management. Int J Dent 2023; 2023: 9365845
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Chandrasekhar V, Rudrapati L, Badami V, Tummala M. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20 (06) 386-391
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Reddy P, Jain V, Kaushik M. et al. Assessment of marginal integrity of proximal composite resin restorations performed with or without magnification. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11 (12) ZC01-ZC04
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991; 7 (02) 107-113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Lempel E, Lovász BV, Bihari E. et al. Long-term clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations in vital vs. endodontically treated posterior teeth: retrospective study up to 13 years. Dent Mater 2019; 35 (09) 1308-1318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Low JF, Dom TNM, Baharin SA. Magnification in endodontics: a review of its application and acceptance among dental practitioners. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 610-616
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Bud MG, Pop OD, Cîmpean S. Benefits of using magnification in dental specialties - a narrative review. Med Pharm Rep 2023; 96 (03) 254-257
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Blumer S, Zidani S, Peretz B. et al. Dental loupe's role in detection of caries of molars in children by student and dentists. Children (Basel) 2023; 10 (06) 1050
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Lo Giudice G, Lo Giudice R, Matarese G. et al. Evaluation of magnification systems in restorative dentistry. An in-vitro study. Dent Cadmos 2015; 83: 296-305
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Aldosari MA. Dental magnification loupes: an update of the evidence. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (03) 310-315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bansal K, Gupta S, Nikhil V, Jaiswal S, Jain A, Aggarwal N. Effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of resin composite and enamel: An In vitro profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2019; 9 (03) 154-158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Yu H, Zhao Y, Li J. et al. Minimal invasive microscopic tooth preparation in esthetic restoration: a specialist consensus. Int J Oral Sci 2019; 11 (03) 31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Neuhaus KW, Jost F, Perrin P, Lussi A. Impact of different magnification levels on visual caries detection with ICDAS. J Dent 2015; 43 (12) 1559-1564
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Bud M, Zlăvog M, Jitaru Ş, Korkut B, Spataru S, Delean A. The outcome of direct composite restorations using the dental operating microscope. Med Pharm Rep 2021; 94 (04) 477-482
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Mamoun J. Preparing and restoring composite resin restorations. The advantage of high magnification loupes or the dental surgical operating microscope. N Y State Dent J 2015; 81 (04) 18-23
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1 (01) 12-18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Sarafopoulou S, Zafeiriadis AA, Tsolakis AI. Enamel defects during orthodontic treatment. Balk J Dent Med 2018; 22 (03) 64-73
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kandikatla P, Polineti P, Ushasree R, Chiluvuri PK. Materials and methods used for adhesive remnant removal and polishing of enamel after orthodontic treatment: a review. Int J Dent Mater 2022; 04 (03) 62-68
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar