Cavity convergence angles for direct composite inlays

Full Issue PDF

“…Others agree that preparations for adhesive inlays should be more divergent to enable easy fitting and placement, and to avoid fractures during try-in (Reid, Saunders & Baidas, 1993;Garber & Goldstein, 1994). In an in vitro study on direct composite inlays, it was found that the withdrawal forces required to remove the inlays from the cavities during try-in may be unacceptably high if the convergence angle was less than 18 ° (Wassell, Walls & McCabe, 1992). Another in vitro study indicated that as well as ease of production, the fit of glass-ceramic inlays improved as the cavity taper increased, and a minimum of 12° taper was suggested (Yamada & others, 1997).…”

Full Issue PDF

“…Others agree that preparations for adhesive inlays should be more divergent to enable easy fitting and placement, and to avoid fractures during try-in (Reid, Saunders & Baidas, 1993;Garber & Goldstein, 1994). In an in vitro study on direct composite inlays, it was found that the withdrawal forces required to remove the inlays from the cavities during try-in may be unacceptably high if the convergence angle was less than 18 ° (Wassell, Walls & McCabe, 1992). Another in vitro study indicated that as well as ease of production, the fit of glass-ceramic inlays improved as the cavity taper increased, and a minimum of 12° taper was suggested (Yamada & others, 1997).…”

Semidirect Composite Onlay With Cavity Sealing: A Review of Clinical Procedures

“…In the extraoral approach, a silicon‐working model is fabricated from the impression of the cavity in order to build‐up the restoration chairside extraorally. This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized . However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial‐occlusal‐distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal …”

“…This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized. 4,19 However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial-occlusal -distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal. 2,4 The major advantage of the semidirect technique is that the dentist can provide his patient with a low-cost indirect restorationt in a single visit.…”

Full Issue PDF

“…Others agree that preparations for adhesive inlays should be more divergent to enable easy fitting and placement, and to avoid fractures during try-in (Reid, Saunders & Baidas, 1993;Garber & Goldstein, 1994). In an in vitro study on direct composite inlays, it was found that the withdrawal forces required to remove the inlays from the cavities during try-in may be unacceptably high if the convergence angle was less than 18 ° (Wassell, Walls & McCabe, 1992). Another in vitro study indicated that as well as ease of production, the fit of glass-ceramic inlays improved as the cavity taper increased, and a minimum of 12° taper was suggested (Yamada & others, 1997).…”

Semidirect Composite Onlay With Cavity Sealing: A Review of Clinical Procedures

“…In the extraoral approach, a silicon‐working model is fabricated from the impression of the cavity in order to build‐up the restoration chairside extraorally. This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized . However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial‐occlusal‐distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal …”

“…This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized. 4,19 However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial-occlusal -distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal. 2,4 The major advantage of the semidirect technique is that the dentist can provide his patient with a low-cost indirect restorationt in a single visit.…”

Full Issue PDF

“…Others agree that preparations for adhesive inlays should be more divergent to enable easy fitting and placement, and to avoid fractures during try-in (Reid, Saunders & Baidas, 1993;Garber & Goldstein, 1994). In an in vitro study on direct composite inlays, it was found that the withdrawal forces required to remove the inlays from the cavities during try-in may be unacceptably high if the convergence angle was less than 18 ° (Wassell, Walls & McCabe, 1992). Another in vitro study indicated that as well as ease of production, the fit of glass-ceramic inlays improved as the cavity taper increased, and a minimum of 12° taper was suggested (Yamada & others, 1997).…”

Semidirect Composite Onlay With Cavity Sealing: A Review of Clinical Procedures

“…In the extraoral approach, a silicon‐working model is fabricated from the impression of the cavity in order to build‐up the restoration chairside extraorally. This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized . However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial‐occlusal‐distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal …”

“…This approach offers an advantage over the intraoral one as less divergent cavity walls are required; thus, a more conservative preparation can be realized. 4,19 However, the freehand semidirect technique is more sensitive to the cavity configuration design than the CAD/CAM technique, e.g., the mesial-occlusal -distal (MOD) cavity may cause a problem because of the polymerization shrinkage that tends to be directed toward the axial walls leading to lock of the restoration that will prevent its removal. 2,4 The major advantage of the semidirect technique is that the dentist can provide his patient with a low-cost indirect restorationt in a single visit.…”