Tunnel restorations: a review.

Conventional cavity designs are coming under increased scrutiny because of an increased emphasis on preservation of tooth substance. The tunnel restoration when used with glass ionomer, may overcome some of the disadvantages of conventional cavity preparations. Justification for the use of the tunnel restoration is from a limited number of short-term clinical observations and destructive laboratory testing of marginal ridge strength. The technique is not without shortcomings. Long-term clinical and nondestructive laboratory trials examining the strength of teeth with tunnel restorations should be undertaken prior to its acceptance as a replacement for techniques in which the marginal ridge is removed.

[1]  H. Messer,et al.  Stiffness of Endodontically-treated Teeth Related to Restoration Technique , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[2]  J. Burgess,et al.  Marginal ridge strength in Class II tunnel restorations. , 1991, American journal of dentistry.

[3]  H. Sigurjóns.  "Extension for prevention": historical development and current status of G V Black's concept. , 1983, Operative dentistry.

[4]  Swift Ej.  An update on glass ionomer cements. , 1988 .

[5]  G. Knight.  The use of adhesive materials in the conservative restoration of selected posterior teeth. , 1984, Australian dental journal.

[6]  A. D. Wilson,et al.  Stress relaxation studies on dental materials. 1. Dental cements. , 1976, Journal of dentistry.

[7]  G. Re,et al.  Preventing proximal gingival overhangs in newly condensed amalgams. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  B. Smith,et al.  The effect of contact area morphology on operative dental procedures. , 1988, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation.

[9]  McLean Jw.  Limitations of posterior composite resins and extending their use with glass ionomer cements. , 1987 .

[10]  Hood Ja.  Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. , 1991 .

[11]  A. Sheiham,et al.  Overhanging dental restorations and periodontal disease. , 1971, The Journal of Periodontology.

[12]  F. Kohout,et al.  Marginal ridge strength of restored teeth with modified Class II cavity preparations. , 1989, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[13]  O. Haugejorden,et al.  Periodontal disease and approximal overhangs on amalgam restorations in Norwegian 21-year-olds. , 1984, Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology.

[14]  H. Stanley.  Pulpal responses to ionomer cements--biological characteristics. , 1990, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[15]  A. Pack,et al.  The prevalence of overhanging margins in posterior amalgam restorations and periodontal consequences. , 1990, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[16]  F. J. Hill,et al.  A laboratory investigation of tunnel restorations in premolar teeth , 1988, British Dental Journal.

[17]  M. Brunsvold,et al.  The prevalence of overhanging dental restorations and their relationship to periodontal disease. , 1990, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[18]  I A Mjör,et al.  Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. , 1990, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[19]  T. Croll.  Glass ionomer-silver cermet bonded composite resin Class II tunnel restorations. , 1988, Quintessence international.

[20]  C. Flaitz,et al.  Secondary caries formation in vitro around glass ionomer restorations. , 1986, Quintessence international.

[21]  H. Messer,et al.  Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. , 1989, Journal of endodontics.

[22]  M. Tyas,et al.  Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. , 1991, Australian dental journal.

[23]  F. García-Godoy,et al.  Microleakage of glass ionomer tunnel restorations. , 1988, American journal of dentistry.

[24]  R. Browne,et al.  Microbial microleakage and pulpal inflammation: a review. , 1986, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[25]  P. R. Hunt.  Microconservative restorations for approximal carious lesions. , 1990, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[26]  R. Elderton.  Cavo-surface angles, amalgam margin angles and occlusal cavity preparations , 1984, British Dental Journal.

[27]  J. Mclean.  Aesthetics in restorative dentistry: the challenge for the future , 1980, British Dental Journal.

[28]  L Steagall,et al.  Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. , 1980, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[29]  R. Phillips,et al.  A Clinical Study of Amalgam Failures , 1949, Journal of dental research.

[30]  W. Douglas,et al.  Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. , 1981, Operative dentistry.