{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01608910891089109, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.468, '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}}
Determinants of quality in operative dentistry.

The definition of quality in operative dentistry has often, at least in part, been related to how well a cut preparation compares with an ideal preparation. The ideal preparation follows well-defined design principles. These design principles have their roots in empirical dentistry and scientific evaluations, the latter often being conducted in vitro. Because of the complexity of following these design principles practically, a large portion of dental education consists of perfecting cavity preparations. By focusing on how to cut these cavity preparations as closely as possible to the ideal preparation, dentists with high psycho-motor skills have been able to provide the public with restorative procedures of high standards over the years. However, because of the tendency of relating quality in operative dentistry to the ideal preparation, we found it justifiable to review the literature dealing with the cavity design principles of the Class II amalgam preparation. What triggered this review was a request from the International Dental Federation (FDI) to start a process leading to a scientifically based quality definition of dental restorations, a definition that determines how different factors, including cavity design principles, affect the longevity of both tooth and restoration. From our review, we conclude that patient response and restoration performance over time, rather than how closely a cavity preparation compares with the ideal preparation, will be of more significance in determining the longevity of a Class II amalgam restoration.