Iatrogenic damage to the adjacent surfaces of primary molars, in three different ways of cavity preparation

  • M. LentersEmail author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
  • G. J. Mandari


Aim: A clinical study was carried out to compare three methods of preparing a cavity regarding the measure of damage to adjacent teeth: the ART method, the use of the latest version of Carisolv™ and as a control group the use of rotating instruments. Methods: Preparations (217) were made by 2 Tanzanian dentists and 2 final year Dutch dental students at the Muhimbili University College of Health Science (MUCHS) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Only children 7 years old, with one class II cavity in a primary molar and no dental experience were included in the study. After cavity preparation, partial impressions of the adjacent teeth were made, from which resin models were cast and later studied under a stereomicroscope. Results: These showed damage of 91.7% in the Bur group, which was significantly greater than in the ART and Carisolv™ groups (62.7% and 59.5% respectively). Conclusion: Protection of the adjacent surfaces is necessary, for instance in the form of matrix band separation and by means of damage reducing techniques. More studies on the long term effect of the damage need to be conducted.

Key words

iatrogenic damage primary molars Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Carisolv™ 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cardwell JE, Roberts BJ: Damage to adjacent teeth during cavity preparations. J Dent Res 1972;51:1269–70.Google Scholar
  2. Elderton RJ: Iatrogenesis in the treatment of dental caries. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1992; 88(1–2): 25–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber B, Gotrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J: Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res 1999; 33(3):171–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 1996;56(3 Spec No):135–40; discussion 161–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Long TD, Smith BG: The effect of contact area morphology on operative dental procedures. J Oral Rehabil 1988;15(6):593–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lussi A, Gygax M: Iatrogenic damage to adjacent teeth during classical approximal box preparation. J Dent 1998;26(5–6):435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Medeiros VA, Seddon RP: Iatrogenic damage to approximal surfaces in contact with Class II restorations. J Dent 2000;28(2):103–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moopnar M, Faulkner KD: Accidental damage to teeth adjacent to crown-prepared abutment teeth. Aust Dent J 1991;36(2):136–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Quirynen M, Bollen CM: The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Qvist V, Johannessen L, Bruun M: Progression of approximal caries in relation to iatrogenic preparation damage. J Dent Res 1992;71(7):1370–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Radlanski RJ, Jager A, Schwestka R, Bertzbach F: Plaque accumulations caused by interdental stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(5):416–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Lenters
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
    • 1
  • G. J. Mandari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cariology Endodontology PedodontologyAcademic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryMuhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS)Dar es SalaamTanzania

Personalised recommendations