Crown cementation and pulpal health

Lam, C.-W.; Wilson, P. R.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00218.x

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18 The assumption that adhesive-sealed dentine is impermeable to water movement has resulted in the effective use of single-bottle total-etch adhesives in reducing cervical hypersensitivity via resin-obliteration of exposed dentinal tubules. [19][20][21][22] Likewise, sealing of tooth preparations for indirect restorations with dentine adhesives has been advocated in fixed prosthodontics that involves the preparation of vital teeth [23][24][25][26] , since the use of provisional cements may permit more microleakage of bacteria and their products than the final restorations. 27,28 In view of the increased adhesive permeability associated with simplified-step adhesives, it is not known whether a hermetic seal can be achieved with the use of single-bottle totaletch adhesives for the sealing of preparations for indirect restorations in vivo.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence

Tay

Frankenberger

Krejci

et al. 2004

Journal of Dentistry

256

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objectives: This study tested the hypothesis that single-bottle total-etch adhesives are effective in reducing dentine permeability under in vivo conditions. Methods: Crown preparations on vital human teeth were performed under local analgesia as part of the treatment plan for prosthetic rehabilitation. Four singlebottle adhesives (Single Bond, 3M ESPE; Excite DSC, Ivoclar Vivadent; Prime and Bond NT Dual-Cure, Dentsply DeTrey and One-Step, Bisco Inc.) were applied to the cut dentine after acid-etching. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken, using an ultralow viscosity impression material, of the smear layer-covered dentine before applying the adhesives to deep vital dentine, and after adhesive placement. Additional impressions were taken of the adhesive-sealed dentine following the removal of the provisional prostheses after a 7-10 day period. Epoxy resin replicas of the crown preparations were examined with scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the extent of dentinal fluid transudation during pre-bonded, immediately bonded and post-bonded periods. Results: Dentinal fluid transudation from localised areas that were close to the dental pulp was universally observed from all epoxy resin replicas, irrespective of the adhesive employed. The transudation of dentinal fluid from the control smear layer-covered dentine of each crown preparation was comparatively mild when compared to the extent that was observed after totaletching and application of the single-bottle adhesive. Dentinal fluid droplets were specifically located over the surface of the adhesive layer. of dentinal fluid occurred even after the removal of the provisional prostheses, and was considerably more profuse in subjects who opted for the fitting of the permanent prostheses without the use of a local anaesthetic solution. Conclusion: Single-bottle adhesives, because of their lack of a comparatively more hydrophobic bonding resin layer, behave as permeable membranes after polymerisation. They permit the continuous transudation of dentinal fluid and do not provide a hermetic seal in vital deep dentine. Although the relatively slow rate of diffusion of dentinal fluid is unlikely to result in post-operative cold sensitivity, it may interfere with the optimal polymerisation of dual-cured or auto-cured composites or resin cements in both direct and indirect restorations. q

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence

Tay

Frankenberger

Krejci

et al. 2004

Journal of Dentistry

256

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, dentists were split as to the value of a resin‐bonding agent, with 23% considering it “very important” and 31% considering it “not important.” It seems logical that resin impregnation might reduce sensitivity, and several authors have advocated its use 26 . However, although case reports have extolled this technique's effectiveness, 27 a clinical trial did not demonstrate its effectiveness, 23 nor has it been found to reduce sensitivity with amalgam restoration placement 28–30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postcementation hypersensitivity: Scientific data versus dentists’ perceptions

Rosenstiel

Rashid

2003

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These values were transformed to number from 0 (nonsensitive) to 10 (extremely hypersensitive). 12 Evaluation of postcementation sensitivity level: The patient's response to sensitivity was evaluated immediately after 5-minute postcementation, 1-day postcementation, 1-week postcementation at routine recall visits. All individual patient data forms and a summary spreadsheet of the results were thoroughly examined and data was statistically analyzed.…”

Section: Patient Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been demonstrated that dentin permeability (ability of the fluid to shift across dentin) increases as dentin is prepared closer to pulp, hence it should be covered with materials that are biologically compatible with the pulp and will seal the dentin well. 11,12 Sealing of dentine with bonding agent or desensitizing agent was suggested following tooth preparation and before making impression. 18 The thin film of these agents decreases the dentin permeability and would also prevent hydraulic fluid movement during impression making and during final luting of the restorations.…”

mentioning

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

Crown cementation and pulpal health

Cited by 14 publications

References 50 publications

Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence

Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence

Postcementation hypersensitivity: Scientific data versus dentists’ perceptions

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About