Bonsor SJ, Pearson GJ. A Clinical Guide to Applied Dental Materials.Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2013
Burke FJT. Suggestions for non-aerosol or reduced-aerosol restorative dentistry (for as long as is necessary). Dent Update. 2020; 47:485-493
Watson TF, Flanagan D, Stone DG. High and low torque handpieces: cutting dynamics, enamel cracking and tooth temperature. Br Dent J. 2000; 188:680-686 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800576
Hilton TF, JL, Broome J. Summitt's Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach, 4th edn. Hanover, IL, USA: Quintessence; 2013
Wilson N, Lynch CD, Brunton PA Criteria for the replacement of restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Oper Dent. 2016; 41:S48-S57 https://doi.org/10.2341/15-058-O
Milic T, George R, Walsh LJ. Evaluation and prevention of enamel surface damage during dental restorative procedures. Aust Dent J. 2015; 60:301-308 https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12230
Tilaveridis I, Stefanidou A, Kyrgidis A Foreign bodies of dental iatrogenic origin displaced in the maxillary sinus - a safety and efficacy analysis of a retrospective study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 12:33-38 https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_190_21
Matsuzaki K, Aoki T, Oji T A rare case of a broken dental bur perforating the medial orbital wall without damaging the eye. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47:75-79 https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a34806
Mulita F, Panagiotopoulos I, Verras GI Accidental ingestion of a dental bur in an 84-year-old male. Clin Case Rep. 2022; 10 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.5488
Rohan B, Applu A, Ashish K, Lipee D. Accidental ingestion of a dental bur seen in a paediatric patient – a case report. Adv Human Biol. 2013; 3:82-84
Panse A, Jathar P, Metha D. Accidental ingestion of instruments in pediatric dental patients: report of three cases. J Dent Allied Sci. 2012; 1:79-81 https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-4696.159158
Mackenzie LM, Waplington M, Bonsor SJ. Splendid isolation: a practical guide to the use of rubber dam part 1. Dent Update. 2020; 47:548-558
Sajjanshetty S, Hugar D, Hugar S Decontamination methods used for dental burs – a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8:ZC39-41 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/9314.4488
Wirth NM, Henrichs LE, Savett D Efficacy of various decontamination methods and sterilization on contaminated and inoculated diamond-coated burs. Gen Dent. 2022; 70:56-60
Whitworth CL, Martin MV, Gallagher M, Worthington HV. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J. 2004; 197:635-640 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811832
Rougier G, Kogane N, Dallard J Biomechanical properties of the human mandibular cadaveric bone related to ramus sagittal osteotomy. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2020; 22:S96-S98 https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1713494
The practice of restorative dentistry frequently involves the preparation of the dental hard tissues and the use of restorative materials. Efficient armamentaria are required to facilitate this process with the friction grip bur used at high speed being the most commonly used operative instrument in contemporary clinical dentistry. This article describes the various friction grip burs that are available to the restorative dentist offering a practical guide as to their selection and usage. Furthermore, techniques are described to optimise outcomes while minimizing iatrogenic damage when working clinically.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Knowledge of different friction grip burs used in contemporary restorative dentistry should facilitate their optimum usage and minimize complications.
Article
Since the advent of the contra-angle high-speed handpiece in 1949, dental burs have become the ubiquitous means of dental hard tissue preparation. They are extensively used in the removal of existing restorative materials and the shaping and finishing of newly placed ones. Efficient preparation of these substrates is achieved by working at high speed, that is a cutting speed of 200,000 revolutions per minute.1 There are two types of dental handpieces that can deliver such a rotational speed: the high-speed handpiece (otherwise known as air rotor or air turbine), and the speed-increasing handpiece, colloquially referred to as the ‘red ring’ handpiece.1 The latter instrument became more popular during the COVID-19 pandemic because it may reduce the amount of aerosol produced during use, which was thought to be beneficial in limiting the potential spread of viral particles into the atmosphere of the dental clinic.2 Furthermore, its other advantages have been recognized for many years. The speed-increasing handpiece is powered by a constant output electrical motor, and so, the instrument produces a constant torque, that is, the ability of the bur to continue to rotate when placed against the substrate being prepared. This contrasts with the air turbine, which relies on the pressure of the air supply to the dental unit to power the instrument. Pressure fluctuations, especially seen in clinics housing many dental chairs operating at the same time, will reduce the torque, and therefore, cutting efficiency, of the bur driven by the air turbine compared to speed-increasing handpieces.3 Furthermore, a bur in a speed-increasing handpiece runs more truly, without the vertical displacement (‘pecking action’) that is seen with an air turbine, so increasing the potential for a smoother preparation surface1 and reduces crack initiation in the surface of the substrate being prepared, particularly a brittle material such as dental enamel.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
