Introduction Provisional restoration is a critical component of fixed prosthodontics treatment, which must satisfy many inter-relative factors such as biological, mechanical, and esthetic. These restorations should have accurate marginal adaptation and optimum strength to maintain functional demands. The present “in vitro” study was conducted to evaluate the effect of water temperature and duration of immersion, on the marginal adaptation and microhardness of four different commercially available provisional restorative materials. Materials and Methods The 240 specimens were then seated on the stainless-steel die which simulated the prepared tooth, and evaluated for the marginal gap for four different provisional restorative materials and divided into four different groups A, B, C, and D. Each group was further divided into six subgroups according to temperature of water and time of immersion. In each group the samples were immersed in water at 20, 30, and 40 degrees, respectively for 5 and 10-minutes duration. Four different temporary restorative materials for crown fabrication were loaded each time to make temporary crowns. Results Each sample was placed under travelling stereoscopic microscope (20× magnification) and photographed. Results for each surface were obtained, and the average of three surfaces was calculated. Knoop hardness was measured using a microhardness tester. The study was subjected to statistical analysis, to know the statistical significance, of the effect of difference in time and temperature changes at the time of final polymerization on surface microhardness and marginal integrity of four different provisional restorative materials. Discussion The mean marginal discrepancies of bis-GMA (group B) at 20, 30, and 40°C for 5 and 10 minutes in water were smaller than the results of other groups. Microhardness evaluation showed that the poly ethyl methacrylate (PEMA) type resin exhibited significantly lower microhardness than the bis-acryl resin composites (Protemp 4 and Systemp.c&b) at both time and temperature intervals. Conclusion The bis-acryl composites material has the least marginal discrepancy in comparison with PEMA and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). The bis-acryl composites materials exhibit superior surface microhardness followed by PEMA and PMMA.
Aim The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of three adhesive luting cements as a function of specimen age, effect of storage media, and effect of curing through porcelain. Materials and Method Twenty samples fabricated for self-cure resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC; RelyX Luting 2, 3M ESPE, United States) were classified as group 1, whereas 40 samples fabricated for two dual-cure resin cements (20 samples each), Universal Resin Cement (Ammdent, Italy) and Maxcem Elite (Kerr Australia Pty. Ltd.), were classified as groups 2 and 3, respectively. The dual-cure cements were photo-activated using light cure unit with an intensity of 550 mW/cm2 in nine overlapping sections for 20 seconds per section on both sides. A total of 60 samples (20 samples in each group) were fabricated and tested using universal testing machine to compare flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of resin-modified GIC with two dual-cure adhesive resin cements, to determine the influence of storage of the specimens in artificial saliva at 37°C for 24 hours and to determine the influence of curing through porcelain disk of 2 mm thickness on these properties. Results The overall mean flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of resin-modified GIC was less than the dual-cure resin cements. The values reduced for resin-modified GIC when the samples were tested after 24 hours of storage in saliva, whereas an increase in the strength was seen for dual-cure cements. The curing through porcelain disk reduced the properties of dual-cure cements. Maxcem Elite showed better overall mean flexural strength and modulus of elasticity in all the parameters. Conclusion When comparing all three cements, both dual-cure cements showed better flexural strength and modulus of elasticity compared to resin-modified GIC, which indicates their use in cementation of fixed restorations.
The success rate of the given fixed partial denture and the longevity of the fixed partial denture is depend on the tooth preparation and the usage of the luting cement under the fixed partial denture prosthesis. Luting cement plays an important role in maintaining or securing the fixed partial denture prosthesis in the cemented position. Luting cement should be bio compatible, it should be non-irritating to the underlying tooth structure and non-irritating to the pulp, it should maintain the adequate marginal seal. In recent days so many newer luting cements has been introduced in to the dentistry, that are claiming for good as well as better clinical performance from the existing cements in the terms of improved and better characteristic properties. The different cements which can be used as luting cements are glass ionomer cements, zinc phosphate, zinc poly carboxylate, zinc oxide eugenol, newer cements like resin modified glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin cements.
To perform any surgical procedure, we require administration of safe as well as effective local anesthesia. The prime and the most important step in any clinical oral surgical procedure is the administration of local anesthesia. Almost in most of the clinical steps in dentistry, local anesthesia is used, therefore there are chances of complications that might occur with the administration of the local anesthetic drug. It is advised to take the proper history of the patient, i.e., is there any systemic complication that might get enhanced with the administration of the local anesthetic agent. Ask and verify, whether the patient is allergic to any specific medicine or allergic to the local anesthetic agent, to avoid any sort of complication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.