Preference regarding technique selection for posterior composite restorations among the dentists in lahore

Bonding composites in deep posterior proximal cavities may be a challenge. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the preferences of dentists in selection of technique to prevent microleakage in posterior deep proximal composite restorations. One hundred questionnaires were randomly distributed to the dental surgeons working in hospitals and clinics in Lahore. The questionnaires were designed to elicit information regarding selection of technique for posterior composite restoration. Ninety two completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty eight general dental practitioners and thirty four specialists responded to the questionnaire. 62% dentists adopted sandwich technique using RMGIC, 60% used GIC in sandwich restoration with immediate composite placement, 39% usedflowable composite as a gingival increment, 4.4% used GIC with delay of 48 hours for composite placement and 4.4% reported to do restoration without using any liner. Difference was found among three groups of dentists in the selection of restorative technique but it was not significant. Sandwich restoration with RMGIC or GIC was the main preference among dentists in deep posterior proximal restorations followed by the use offlowable composite

Arch form analyses: a comparison of two different methods

This study determines and compares the frequency distribution and results of two methods establishing morphology of the dental arch form. It was conducted on 250 patients visiting Lahore Medical and Dental College, Lahore. The casts were measured and photocopied, which were analyzed first by using a mathematical model as advocated by Noroozi3 and then by superimposing orthoform templates to determine the arch forms. The dental arches were classified into square, ovoid, and tapered forms to determine and compare the frequency distributions between the two methods. The comparison between results of both methods was made by applying chi square test. Cross tabulation was done to observe the congruence of two methods on different arch forms. According to Noroozi's mathematical model, frequency distribution of ovoid, square and tapering arch forms was found to be 82%, 64%and 11.2% respectively while according to orthoform templates those were 53.2%, 9.2% and 37.6% respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between results of two methods [P<.001]. The ovoid arch form was most common arch form according to both methods. There was a statistically significant difference in the results of two methods as well as their frequency distribution