The Comparison of Temporary Crown Retention Among Three Temporary Cements
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Temporary cements are crucial for retaining temporary crowns in fixed dental prosthesis. The aim of this study was to compare the temporary crown retention among three temporary cements and to evaluate the mode of failure of temporary crowns, which fabricated with self-cured acrylic (Dentalon Plus, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Germany) when cemented with zinc oxide eugenol cement (Temp bond, Kerr, USA), zinc oxide non-eugenol cement (Temp Bond NE, Kerr, USA) and resin temporary cement (Temp Bond Clear with Triclosan, Kerr, USA). Sixty maxillary first premolars were prepared for full temporary crown restorations. The nails were fixed on the occlusal surface by applying cyanoacrylate glue, then the specimens were tested for retention by using tensile mode of the universal testing machine (LR 30K, LLOYD Instruments, UK) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. All temporary crowns were luted with temporary cements under fingers pressure for 5 seconds then kept the specimens in position under 5-kg load using the universal testing machine for 5 minutes. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 36๐C in water bath for 24 hours. After that, all specimens were investigated for bond strength by using tensile mode of the universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. After the removal of the temporary crowns, failure modes were observed. The median retention of zinc oxide eugenol cement group was 324.35 (minimum 52.52, maximum 553.20) kPa, zinc oxide non-eugenol cement group was 222.43 (minimum 20.00, maximum 439.56) kPa and resin temporary cement group 117.10 (minimum 24.94, maximum 349.13) kPa. When using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test, no statistically significant difference was found between zinc oxide eugenol group and zinc oxide non-eugenol cement group (p = 0.058) but resin temporary cement group was found to be significantly different from both zinc oxide eugenol group and zinc oxide non-eugenol cement group (p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Most of specimens from three groups were found with the failure mode type three, which is most of the temporary cement (3/4) adhere to the internal surface of the temporary crown.
Article Details
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการลงตีพิมพ์ในวิทยาสารทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์เฉพาะของคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใด ๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร จากคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นก่อนเท่านั้น
References
6. Provisional restorations, more than just a temporary. Dent Update 2005;32(8):443-4,447-8,450-2.
2. McDonald TR. Contemporary Temporization: A Peer-reviewed Publication [serial on the internet] 2009: Available from:https://www.ineedce.com/coursereview.aspx?url=2058%
2fPDF%2f1103cei_contemp_rev1.pdf&scid=14510.
3. Kurtzman GM, Strassler HE. Provisional Fixed Restorations:A Peer-Reviewd Publication [serial on the internet] 2006:Available from: https://www.ineedce.com/coursereview.aspx?url=2058%2fPDF%2f1103cei_contemp_rev1.pdf&scid=14510.
4. Duymus ZY, Yanikoglu ND, Bayindir F. The investigation of the marginal microleakage of four temporary cements in metal casting. Ataturk Univ 2005;15(1):22-8.
5. Lepe X, Bales DJ, Johnson GH. Retention of provisional crowns fabricated from two materials with the use of four temporary cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(4):469-75.
6. Rego MRdM, Santiago LC. Retention of provisional crowns cemented with eight temporary cements. Comparative study. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12(3):209-12.
7. Bayindir F, Akyil MS, Bayindi YZ. Effect of eugenol and non-eugenol containing temporary cement on permanent cement retention and microhardness of cured composite resin. Dent Mater J 2003;22(4):592-9.
8. Millstein PL, Hazan E, Nathanson D. Effect of aging on temporary cement retention in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(6):768-71.
9. Suchatlampong C, Suputtamongkol K. Fundamental of Dental Biomaterial 1. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Mahidol University;2009:196.
10. Powers JM, Wataha JC. Cements. Dental materials properties and manipulation. Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2008:142-62.
11. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, Kim S. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol: A clinically oriented review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73(6):729-37.
12. Fiori-Junior M, Matsumoto W, Silva RA, Porto-Neto ST, Silva JM. Effect of temporary cements on the shear bond strength of luting cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(1):30-6.
13. Abo-Hamar SE, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Effect of temporary cements on the bond strength of ceramic luted to dentin. Dental Mater 2005;21(9):794-803.
14. Ribeiro JCV, Coelho PG, Janal MN, Silva NRFA, Monteiro AJ, Fernandes CAO. The influence of temporary cements on dental adhesive systems for luting cementation. J dent
2011;39(3):255-62.
15. Physical Properties of the Temporary cements [serial on the internet] [cited 12 Oct 2011]. Available from: https://www. kerrdental.eu/media/4925/TempBond%20Clear,%20
NE%202008-IADR.pdf.
16. Panagakos FS, Volpe AR, Petrone ME, DeVizio W, Davies RM. Advanced oral antibacterial/anti-inflammatory technology: A comprehensive review of the clinical benefits of a triclosan/copolymer/fluoride dentrifice. J Clin Dent 2005;16:1-19.
17. Lawson NC, Burgess JO, Mercante D. Crown retention and flexural strength of eight provisional cements. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98(6):455-60.
18. Dündar M, Çal E, Gökçe B, Türkün M, Özcan M. Influence of fluoride- or triclosan-based desensitizing agents on adhesion of resin cements to dentin. Clin Oral Invest 2010;14(5):579-86.
19. Lee SY, Wang CC, Chen DC, Lai YL. Retentive and compressive strengths of modified zinc oxide-eugenol cements. J Dent 2000;28(1):69-75.
20. Völkel T. Scientific Documentation Systemp®link. [serial on the internet] 2005: Available from: www.ivoclarvivadent.com. br/zoolu-website.
