Related Experiment Videos
Optimizing resin cement removal around esthetic crown margins
Yasar F Mansour1, Maria R Pintado, Christina A Mitchell
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
|July 11, 2006
Summary
Subclinical amounts of luting cement remain at the crown-tooth interface regardless of fabrication technique. The "flick off" method retained more cement than the "wiping" method.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Prosthodontics
- Biomaterials Engineering
Background:
- Accurate luting cement removal is crucial for long-term crown restoration success.
- Residual cement can lead to secondary caries and periodontal issues.
- Understanding cement behavior with different fabrication and removal techniques is essential.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantify residual luting cement at the crown-tooth interface.
- To compare four esthetic crown fabrication techniques.
- To evaluate two excess cement removal methods.
Main Methods:
- Four crown fabrication techniques were used: feldspathic porcelain/platinum foil, feldspathic porcelain/refractory die, resin composite/CAD/CAM, and feldspathic porcelain/CAD/CAM.
- Excess cement was removed by either a "flick off" or "wiping" method.
- Digital profilometry measured cement volume, depth, and surface area.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in retained cement volume or depth were found among the four crown fabrication techniques.
- The "flick off" method resulted in significantly greater retained cement volume and depth compared to the "wiping" method.
- No statistical difference in the surface area of retained cement was observed between the two removal methods.
Conclusions:
- Subclinical amounts of luting cement consistently remained at the crown-tooth interface after clinical excess cement removal.
- The method of excess cement removal significantly impacts the amount of residual cement, with "flick off" being less effective than "wiping".