These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of provisional restorations on the final bond strengths of porcelain laminate veneers.
    Author: Aykent F, Usumez A, Ozturk AN, Yucel MT.
    Journal: J Oral Rehabil; 2005 Jan; 32(1):46-50. PubMed ID: 15634301.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of the different provisional restorations cementation techniques on the final bond strengths of porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs). Thirty-six extracted human central incisors were sectioned 2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction, and crown parts were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin. Standardized PLV preparations were carried out on labial surfaces of the teeth. Then the teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 12 each. In group 1, provisional restorations were cemented with eugenol-free cement. In group 2, prepared teeth surfaces were first coated with a desensitizing agent then provisional restorations were cemented with resin cement. In group 3, provisional restorations were not fabricated to serve as control. After specimens were stored in distilled water for 2 weeks, provisional restorations were removed and final IPS Empress 2 ceramic veneers were bonded with a dual-curing resin. Two microtensile samples from each tooth measuring 1.2 x 1.2 x 5 mm were prepared. These sections were subjected to microtensile testing and failure values were recorded. The data were analysed by one-way anova and Tukey HSD tests. The PLVs, placed on the tooth surface that had received a dentine desensitizer and provisional restorations luted with resin cement (group 2), showed the lowest bond strength in all test groups. But no statistically significant differences were found between the bond strength of PLVs in control group (no provisional restorations) and group 1 (provisional restorations cemented with eugenol-free cement before final cementations). Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination of this study also showed that the bonding to enamel surface was better in control group and group 1 than group 2.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]