Comparison of Composite Placement Techniques by Recently Qualified Dental Practitioners.

Objectives: To evaluate the placement of composite materials by new graduates using three alternative placement techniques.Methods: A cohort of 34 recently qualified graduates were asked to restore class II interproximal cavities in plastic teeth using three different techniques.

(i) A conventional incremental filling technique (Herculite XRV) using increments no larger than 2-mm with an initial layer on the cervical floor of the box of 1-mm.
(ii) Flowable bulk fill technique (Dentsply SDR) bulk fill placement in a 3-mm layer followed by an incremental fill of a microhybrid resin
(iii) Bulk fill (Kerr Sonicfill) which involved restorations placed in a 5-mm layer.

The operators were instructed in each technique, didactically and with a hands-on demonstration, prior to restoration placement.
All restorations were cured according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Each participant restored 3 teeth, 1 tooth per treatment technique.
The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria to assess both the marginal adaptation and the surface texture of the restorations. Blind evaluations were carried out independently by two examiners with the aid of magnification (loupes X2.5). Examiners were standardized prior to evaluation.
Results: Gaps between the tooth margins and the restoration or between the layers of the restoration were found in 13 of Group (i), 3 of Group (ii), and 4 of Group (iii)
Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the incrementally filled group (i) and the flowable bulk-fill group (ii) (p=0.0043) and between the incrementally filled (i) and the bulk fill groups (iii) (p=0.012) and no statistical difference (p=0.69) between the bulk filled groups Conclusions: Bulk fill techniques may result in a more satisfactory seal of the cavity margins when restoring with composite.

Integration of shading and texture cues: testing the linear model

One of the first attempts to develop a formal model of depth cue integration is to be found in Maloney and Landy's (1989) "human depth combination rule". They advocate that the combination of depth cues by the visual sysetem is best described by a weighted linear model. The present experiments tested whether the linear combination rule applies to the integration of texture and shading. As would be predicted by a linear combination rule, the weight assigned to the shading cue did vary as a function of its curvature value. However, the weight assigned to the texture cue varied systematically as a function of the curvature value of both cues. Here we descrive a non-linear model which provides a better fit to the data. Redescribing the stimuli in terms of depth rather than curvature reduced the goodness of fit for all models tested. These results support the hypothesis that the locus of cue integration is a curvature map, rather than a depth map. We conclude that the linear comination rule does not generalize to the integration of shading and texture, and that for these cues it is likely that integration occurs after the recovery of surface curvature.