{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015202702702702704, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016891891891891893, 'mean_word_length': 5.051020408163265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
General field isolation and the cementation of indirect restorations: Part I.

This article, the first of two parts, has re-introduced the concept of general field isolation. The disadvantages were discussed and recorded as being related to the retention of the slit rubber dam. Innovative techniques which allow for an upgrading of the isolation are introduced through a pictorial essay of five case studies. Further innovations utilising absorbent wafers and cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive are reported in a further five case studies in part 2 of this article scheduled for the August issue.