Provisional coronal build‐up of posterior teeth for endodontic treatment. Case report

Abstract

A technique using a glass-cermet cement for preendodontic coronal build-up of badly broken-down teeth is described. This glasscermet cement fulfils the more specific requirements of a material used in coronal build-ups of a less permanent nature without damage to existing tooth structure and satisfies the requirements of endodontic procedures. The technique allows for endodontic therapy to be commenced immediately and facilitates canal instrumentation.

Temporization for endodontics

“…IRM was assessed and compared to other temporary restorative materials in a number of studies both in vivo and in vitro with con£icting ¢ndings. In an in vivo study, IRM performed almost equally to Cavit for temporizing class I access cavities in human teeth using a 4-mm thickness over a 3-week period (Beach et al 1996). In an in vitro study, IRM allowed to set next to CMCP prevented Proteus vulgaris penetration signi¢cantly better than Cavit set next to both CMCPand saline solution (Blaney et al1981).…”

“…In another study, Melton et al (1990) found that TERM provided 67% sealability compared to 100% for Cavit when used to seal-etched and nonetched cavities without thermocycling. In vivo, it was found that TERM is inferior to IRM and Cavit in class I cavities when used in 4-mm thickness and for a 3-week temporization period (Beach et al 1996). Many other studies have demonstrated similar e¡ectiveness of TERM and Cavit.…”

“…The majority of in vivo and in vitro studies employing bacteria demonstrated almost equal or better seal with IRM (or ZOE) than with Cavit (Parris et al1964, Krakow et al 1977, Blaney et al 1981, Beach et al 1996, Barthel et al 1999. Only Deveaux et al (1992) showed that Cavit was superior to IRM in preventing Streptococcus sanguis penetration.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is preferable to condition the exposed surfaces with polyacrylic acid and to protect the filling material after insertion with varnish or unfilled resin as these steps improve the long‐term sealing ability (Lim 1987, 1990). The use of glass‐ionomer cement as a provisional build‐up to aid in endodontic isolation and coronally seal the root canal was suggested recently (Bass & Kafalias 1987, Morgan & Marshall 1990, Rice & Jackson 1992). The advantages are: providing adequate seal with the tooth structure and sufficient strength and retention to withstand the forces of the application of the rubber‐dam clamp.…”

“…The advantages are: providing adequate seal with the tooth structure and sufficient strength and retention to withstand the forces of the application of the rubber‐dam clamp. The material is also radiopaque and can be rapidly and easily inserted with the possibility to commence endodontic treatment at the initial appointment (Bass & Kafalias 1987, Morgan & Marshall 1990, Rice & Jackson 1992). The disadvantages of the material are its cost and the aesthetic result that makes it less than ideal for use on anterior teeth.…”