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: Influence of provisional cementation on the stability of adhesively bonded resin-based composite crowns.
    Author: Schmidt MB, Rauch A, Haas L, Rosentritt M.
    Journal: Am J Dent; 2024 Aug; 37(4):183-186. PubMed ID: 39186597.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of temporary cementation and subsequent bonding on the durability during in-vitro aging-simulation and fracture force of resin-based composite crowns. METHODS: Identical molar crowns (n=48, n=8 per group) were milled from resin-based composites and temporarily cemented and finally bonded to human molars. To simulate temporary application, crowns were cemented either with zinc-oxide-eugenol-cement (Tempbond) or with eugenol free zinc-oxide-cement (Tempbond NE). For a first simulation of a long-term provisional clinical application, thermal cycling, and mechanical loading (TCML 2 x 600 x 5°C-55°C, 2 minutes each cycle, distilled water, 240,000 cycles at 50N) was performed. After TCML all crowns were removed, cleaned, and luted either by using etch-and-rinse technique (Vococid, Futurabond U, Bifix QM) or a self-adhesive (Bifix SE) cementation system. A second thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML 2 x3,000 x 5°C/55°C, 2 minutes each cycle, distilled water, 1.2 x 10⁶ at 50N) was accomplished to simulate 5 years of clinical application. To assess the survival of the crowns, the failure rates during TCML were documented. As controls, crowns were included without prior provisional cementation. After TCML all crowns were loaded to failure. Failure was categorized as fracture of the crown and partial loosening of the crown. RESULTS: All crowns survived both TCML procedures without any failures. The fracture values after TCML varied between 3,538.0 ± 1,041.2 N and 4,612.0 ± 801.5 N without significant (P= 0.146) differences between the individual groups. No correlation was found between fracture force and type of provisional cementation (zinc-oxide-eugenol vs. zinc-oxide: Pearson: -0.063/P= 0.672) or type of bonding (adhesive vs. self-adhesive: Pearson: -0.151/ P= 0.307). No different failure pattern was observed between the tested systems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Regardless of the type of temporary cementation, there was no effect on the in-vitro performance or strength of the final permanently bonded crowns. Resin-based crowns might be bonded with adhesive or self-adhesive systems even after previous temporary cementation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]