F10.
Identify potential problems with treating cervical lesions and how those
problems should be managed.
The above figure shows two cavity designs (one without (left) and one with (right) aand incisal enamel bevel) that were evaluated in vivo. Different dentin bonding agents were evaluated, and the slide below shows how the retention rate decreased over time when no incisal enamel bevel was used.
The figure below shows how the retention rate increased by using an incisal enamel bevel.
The introduction of improved dentin bonding agents has resulted in a decreased demand for mechanical undercuts. By using modern dentin bonding agents, a broad incisal enamel bevel and a single-bottle dentin-bonding agent as a final sealant, the prognosis of such a restoration is now rather good. The reason a single-bottle dentin-bonding agent is recommended as a marginal sealer rather than a two-bottle system is only due to simplicity, not necessary due to clinical success. More research is needed to determine whether there are any significant clinical differences between the one- and the two-bottle systems when they are used to bond to the dentin.
