Pulpal evaluation of teeth restored with fixed prostheses

Jackson, C. Russell; Skidmore, A.E.; Rice, Rachel

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90238-6

Cited by 69 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The length of the studies ranged from 1 year to 23 years, with an average length of about 6 years. There were additional studies [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] containing complications data associated with single crowns. One of these studies 18 only provided data regarding 1 type of complication (need for endodontic treatment), and it was included in the calculations related to the need for endodontic treatment.…”

Section: Single Crownsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics

Goodacre

Bernal

Rungcharassaeng

et al. 2003

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

447

301

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to identify the incidence of complications and the most common complications associated with single crowns, fixed partial dentures, all-ceramic crowns, resin-bonded prostheses, and posts and cores. A Medline and an extensive hand search were performed on English-language publications covering the last 50 years. The searches focused on publications that contained clinical data regarding success/failure/complications. Within each type of prosthesis, raw data were combined from multiple studies and mean values calculated to determine what trends were noted in the studies. The lowest incidence of clinical complications was associated with all-ceramic crowns (8%). Posts and cores (10%) and conventional single crowns (11%) had comparable clinical complications incidences. Resin-bonded prostheses (26%) and conventional fixed partial dentures (27%) were found to have comparable clinical complications incidences. The 3 most common complications encountered with all-ceramic crowns were crown fracture (7%), loss of retention (2%), and need for endodontic treatment (1%). The 3 most common complications associated with posts and cores were post loosening (5%), root fracture (3%), and caries (2%). With single crowns, the 3 most common complications were need for endodontic treatment (3%), porcelain veneer fracture (3%), and loss of retention (2%). When fixed partial denture studies were reviewed, the 3 most commonly reported complications were caries (18% of abutments), need for endodontic treatment (11% of abutments), and loss of retention (7% of prostheses). The 3 most common complications associated with resin-bonded prostheses were prosthesis debonding (21%), tooth discoloration (18%), and caries (7%). (J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:31-41.) A complication has been defined 1 as "a secondary disease or condition developing in the course of a primary disease or condition." Although complications may be an indication that clinical failure has occurred, this is not typically the case. It is also possible that complications may reflect substandard care. But once again, this is usually not true. Most of the time, complications are conditions that occur during or after appropriately performed fixed prosthodontic treatment procedures.Knowledge regarding the clinical complications that can occur in fixed prosthodontics enhances the clinician's ability to complete a thorough diagnosis, develop the most appropriate treatment plan, communicate realistic expectations to patients, and plan the time intervals needed for post-treatment care. Although a plethora of articles present clinical complications data, none provide a comprehensive comparison of the complications associated with the most commonly used restorations/ prostheses.One of the purposes of this article is to present data regarding the incidence of clinical complications associated with the following restorations/prostheses: single crowns (all-metal, metal ceramic, resin veneered metal); fixed partial dentures (all-metal, metal ceramic, resinvenee...

show abstract

Section: Single Crownsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics

Goodacre

Bernal

Rungcharassaeng

et al. 2003

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

447

301

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While reported sensitivity tends to be short term that is several week or less, 1,4 some cases of prolonged sensitivity upto 1 year or longer have been reported, that eventually required endodontic therapy. 4,5 Many reasons for sensitivity from the glass ionomer luting agents has been postulated 15 including:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents in relieving the Pre- and Postcementation Sensitivity for Full Coverage Restorations: A Clinical Evaluation

Gupta¹,

Un²,

Pl³

et al. 2013

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients frequently report sensitivity of prepared abutment teeth during the temporization period and after the final cementation of full coverage restoration.Purpose of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents in reducing the pre-and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations and to compare the relative efficacy of three in office applied desensitizing agents in relieving the postcementation sensitivity with the use of glass ionomer luting cement. Materials and methods:This study consisted of 30 patients requiring either full coverage restoration or 3 unit fixed partial denture. Total of 40 restorations (n = 40) were made and were randomly assigned into four groups comprising 10 restoration (n = 10) in each group. Group C control where no desensitizer application was done, group BB applied with BisBlock dentin desensitizer (Bisco Inc.), group ST applied with Systemp desensitizer (Ivoclar Vivadent), group GC applied with GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer (GC Asia). Desensitizer application was done immediately after the tooth preparation. Sensitivity of the tested abutment was determined by the patient response to cold, hot and bite stimuli and were recorded on visual analog scale (VAS). Sensitivity level scores was evaluated at 4 time intervals, i.e. 1 week after desensitizer application at baseline precementation appointment and others at 5 minutes, 1 day and 1 week postcementation appointment. VAS score data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's test.Results: BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in statistically significant (p < 0.01) reduction in postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement in comparison to Systemp desensitizer at 5 minutes, 1 week postcementation time interval with no statistical difference was seen between all desensitizer groups at 1 day postcementation. Application of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in highly significant (p < 0.01) reduction in sensitivity level at the end of 1 week.Clinical significance: Desensitizer's application on the prepared abutment teeth is considerably effective in relieving both pre-and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restoration over the short duration of time. Immediate reduction in postoperative sensitivity relatively in a short time period may be beneficial in terms of patient's comfort. Nonetheless, multicenter long-term clinical trials should be conducted to confirm the results. Conclusion:Efficacy of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer was more in relieving the postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement at various time intervals in comparison to Systemp desensitizer. In conclusion, application of desensitizers was beneficial to reduce the pre-and postcementation abutment sensitivity.

show abstract

“…The incidence of pulpal injury due to prosthetic preparation ranged from 2%-57.1% during observational periods of 2-25 years (34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43), and endodontic complications mainly affected anterior teeth (41,43,44). In particular, one clinical study found that the incidence of pulpal necrosis in maxillary anterior teeth was 54.5% for multi-unit fixed dental prostheses and 19.2% for single crowns (44).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro analysis of residual tooth structure of maxillary anterior teeth after different prosthetic finish line preparations for full-coverage single crowns

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate residual dentin thickness (RDT) after different tooth preparations, 90 sound maxillary anterior teeth were selected and divided into 3 groups according to tooth type (n = 30), namely, maxillary central incisors, maxillary lateral incisors, and maxillary canines. In each group, specimens were randomly divided and prepared for single-crown coverage with shoulder (SHO, n = 10, control), slight chamfer (CHA, n = 10), and knife-edge (KNE, n = 10) finish lines. After tooth preparation, specimens were sectioned and divided into 4 subgroups (buccal, distal, palatal, and mesial) according to measurement area. RDT values were compared by using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (P = 0.05). Significant differences were found between SHO and the other two groups (P < 0.05) but not between CHA and KNE (P > 0.05). SHO was significantly more aggressive than CHA and KNE, which were comparable. Interproximal areas became critical due to thin RDT, which could potentially compromise the structural and biological integrity of teeth. The choice of finish line should be guided by careful clinical evaluation. (J Oral Sci 55, 79-84, 2013)

show abstract

Pulpal evaluation of teeth restored with fixed prostheses

Cited by 69 publications

References 10 publications

Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics

Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics

Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents in relieving the Pre- and Postcementation Sensitivity for Full Coverage Restorations: A Clinical Evaluation

In vitro analysis of residual tooth structure of maxillary anterior teeth after different prosthetic finish line preparations for full-coverage single crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About