Dental Floss Selection and Its Impact on Evaluation of Interproximal Contacts in Licensure Exams

Abstract

Ideal interproximal contacts between adjacent natural teeth or dental restorations are a critical factor for the health of the dental-alveolar complex. Interproximal contact tightness is a physiological entity affected by many patient-related and restorative parameters. This variation poses a challenge in deining the "clinically acceptable" contact area tightness (CAT) and therefore how students and clinicians should be trained to evaluate this parameter. The most widely used method to evaluate interproximal contacts is to pass dental loss between contact areas. Candidates for licensure exams are instructed to check contact areas with dental loss and are advised that this will be one of the crucial parameters to be evaluated in the overall restoration quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a standardized interproximal contact with six brands of dental loss. Thirty faculty members and thirty dental students at one U.S. dental school evaluated the tightness of a single interproximal contact on a typodont. The results showed that no difference was found between CAT evaluations by faculty and students, whereas signiicant differences were found between different loss brands. In light of the results, it is suggested that licensure boards should standardize the recommendation for which loss brand should be used in order to avoid inconsistencies in students' preparation.

Proximal contact tightness of class Ⅱ bulk-fill composite resin restorations: An <i>in vitro</i> study

“…PCT is used to be evaluated clinically by passing dental floss interdentally and recording the PCT as 'satisfactory', 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' [22][23][24][25] . This technique is considered unreliable for measurement of minor changes in contact tightness and is often considered to be more subjective.…”

The accuracy of clinician evaluation of interproximal contacts using different methods

“…Research involving shim stock has focused primarily on measuring the interproximal contact force, [15][16][17][18] and the use of different shim stock thicknesses, different measuring devices, and different clinical questions has led to results that cannot be compared with those reported in this study. Similarly, floss [19][20][21] and articulating film 22,23 have been used to evaluate different restorative procedures and materials, but direct comparisons with the results of the present study are not possible.…”

“…12 Previous assessments of interproximal contact have focused primarily on unrestored teeth or teeth containing direct restorative materials. [2][3][4][5]8,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The authors are unaware of evidence-based reports that have evaluated the best methods for assessing the tightness of interproximal contacts of crowns. This study was conducted to provide information by comparing 3 different evaluation methods in which the interproximal distance was controlled by varying the crown width.…”

Long-term stability of retreated defective restorations in patients with vertical food impaction

“…Tightness of proximal tooth contact was checked by the conventional method using dental floss (GUM unwaxed, Sunstar Americas Inc., Chicago, IL, 60630, USA), where a normal contact allows floss to pass with a snap. [ 15 16 ]…”