A comparative study of four zinc oxide and eugenol formulations as restorative materials. Part I

Jendresen, Malcolm D.; Phillips, Ralph W.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(69)90090-0

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, unreacted eugenol in ZOE cements may produce tissue irritation and induce an inflammatory reaction in the oral mucous membranes. Another drawback of ZOE cements is their weak mechanical properties, as demonstrated by their low strength, poor resistance to abrasion, and disintegration in the oral cavity with time [79,80]. Moreover, ZOE cements interfere with the polymerisation reaction of methacrylate-based restorative resins due to the remaining free eugenol [81,82].…”

Section: Eugenol and Eugenyl Methacrylatementioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobials in Dentistry

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental caries (decay) is caused by pathogenic bacterial species, which afflicts nearly a third of the world′s population from early childhood to old age. Treatment of tooth decay often involves the use of filling materials to restore the cavity; however, if untreated, it can cause pain, infection and eventually lead to tooth loss. Since the oral environment is colonised by many different microorganisms, bacterial biofilms can form on these filling materials, contributing to secondary caries that can eventually lead to the failure of the dental restoration. Thus, preventing the formation of bacterial biofilms is an important strategy in the management of caries, which has led to research enabling antimicrobial capabilities in dental materials. Materials and pharmaceutical sciences are in a continuous race against microbial resistance but are trying to balance between beneficial biota associated with the oral cavity, and, of course, avoiding a harmful effect on tissues is challenging. This has, therefore, stemmed a substantial interest in both preventive and restorative measures that would enable limiting the formation of secondary caries, oral microbial biofilms, and the retention of tooth mineral. Thus, innovative strategies are being explored and here we present a review with a focus on strategies that can inhibit or limit the formation of bacterial biofilms.

show abstract

Section: Eugenol and Eugenyl Methacrylatementioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobials in Dentistry

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(20) Con respecto al IRM, este material provisional pudo resistir mayores fuerzas comparado con el Coltosol debido a que el IRM contiene en su composición resina de polimetilmetacrilato y ácido ortoetoxibenzoico, lo que mejora su resistencia. (21,22,23) Pero comparado con dientes sanos fue mucho menor, sobretodo en cavidades MOD que soportó cargas e 335,38 N. El estudio realizado por Eliyas et al en el 2014 afirma que los materiales provisionales se deben usar solo en cavidades pequeñas por su poca resistencia mecánica sobretodo en dientes expuestos frecuentemente a cargas y recomienda que para un aporte de mejor resistencia, el IRM debe mezclarse en una proporción polvo a líquido de 6: 1. Ya que una mezcla más suave y pegajosa da una mejor actividad antimicrobiana pero con propiedades físicas reducidas (9) TIPO DE FRACTURA En el presente estudio, el 80% de las muestras del grupo control presentaron un tipo de fractura favorable definiendo de esta manera una diferencia estadística importante con los grupos COLT MO y COLT MOD donde mostraron el 80% y 100 % respectivamente de fracturas de tipo desfavorable.…”

Section: I S C U S I ó Nunclassified

Estudio in Vitro Sobre El Efecto De Diferentes Restauraciones Directas en La Resistencia a La Fractura De Premolares Endodonciados

Ortega¹,

Ferrecio²

2021

reportaendo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: Al realizar un tratamiento de conducto se pierde estructura dentaria haciendo susceptible al diente a la fractura dental. Después de realizar el tratamiento de conducto, el diente debe ser sellado con un material restaurador que debe prevenir filtraciones, fugas y dar buena resistencia mecánica. Objetivo:Determinar los efectos de diferentes restauraciones directas en la resistencia a la fractura de premolares endodonciados. Materiales y métodos: Sesenta y cinco premolares maxilares se seleccionaron, se realizó el tratamiento endodóntico y las muestras se asignaron a 5 grupos para cada material restaurador . Grupo Control: 5 dientes sanos; Grupo Convencional (n=15): restauraciones con resina convencional (3M™ Filtek™ Z350 XT); Grupo Bulk (N=15): restauraciones con resina fluida bulkfill (3M™FiltekTMBulk Fill Flowable ); Grupo Colt (N=15): restauraciones con ionómero de vidrio (GCFuji LININ GLC) excepto una capa de 1,5mm de la superficie oclusal que se restauró con óxido de zinc/sulfato de calcio (Coltosol®F); Grupo IRM (N:15): restauraciones con óxido de zinc/eugenol (IRM,DentsplySirona). Cada grupo a su vez fueron agrupados en 3 subgrupos de acuerdo a los 3 tipos de cavidades realizadas: oclusal (N:5), mesio–oclusal (N:5) y mesio–ocluso–distal (N:5).Las muestras se sometieron a una fuerza de compresión hasta la fractura. Resultados: Se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los grupos Colt MO, Colt MOD e IRM MOD comparadas con el grupo control. La resistencia a la fractura de los dientes tratados endodónticamente restaurados con resina convencional y resina bulk fill no mostraron una disminución significativa en la resistencia a la fractura en comparación con el grupo control. Conclusión: El Coltosol no es un material adecuado a utilizar en cavidades MO y MOD debido a que no ofrece una resistencia mecánica adecuada en dientes endodonciados.

show abstract

“…Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM), Cavit, and TERM are commonly used as temporary filling materials [20]. IRM, that is used due to its high compressive strength [21], has been demonstrated in bacterial leakage to be less leak proof than Cavit and TERM [20, 22]. These results were similar to those reported by others, in experiments performed using the fluid filtration technique [23, 24] and the dye penetration technique [25].…”

Section: Temporary Filling Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth Review and Treatment Recommendations

Slutzky-Goldberg

Slutzky²,

Gorfil

et al. 2009

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coronal restorations and posts can positively influence the long-term prognosis of teeth following root canal therapy. Final sealing the canal by placing an appropriate post and core will minimize leakage of oral fluids and bacteria into the periradicular area and is recommended as soon as possible after completion of root canal filling. Glass ionomer or MTA placed over the residual root canal filling after post space preparation may be effective to prevent bacterial leakage. A ferrule of 1-2 mm of tooth tissue coronal to the finish line of the crown significantly improves the fracture resistance of the tooth and is more important than the type of the material the core and post are made of.

show abstract

A comparative study of four zinc oxide and eugenol formulations as restorative materials. Part I

Cited by 25 publications

References 17 publications

Antimicrobials in Dentistry

Antimicrobials in Dentistry

Estudio in Vitro Sobre El Efecto De Diferentes Restauraciones Directas en La Resistencia a La Fractura De Premolares Endodonciados

Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth Review and Treatment Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About