• Journal of Industrial Technology
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.12-15
• /
• 2017

It is important in dentistry that the provisional cement should be cleaned thoroughly from the crown before definitive cementation. The provisional cement has been removed by physical means such as curette, scaler, pumice, or sand-blasting with alumina particles, which is time-consuming, irritating, tedious, even causing crack. To avoid such troubles occurring through such physical cleaning means, the chemical solutions for dissolving the provisional cement remaining in dental crown were prepared, and solubilizing power of the solutions was measured and compared. The solution composed of MEA, NaOH, chloride chemicals ($CHCl_3$, $CCl_4$, $CH_2Cl_2$), surfactants (Igepal, Tween20), chelating agent (EDTA), and Ethyl cellosolve was most effective for dissolving the provisional cement.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.234-240
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study evaluated the effectiveness of various methods for removing provisional cement from implant abutments, and what effect these methods have on the retention of prosthesis during the definitive cementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty implant fixture analogues and abutments were embedded in resin blocks. Forty cast crowns were fabricated and divided into 4 groups each containing 10 implants. Group A was cemented directly with the definitive cement (Cem-Implant). The remainder were cemented with provisional cement (Temp-Bond NE), and classified according to the method for cleaning the abutments. Group B used a plastic curette and wet gauze, Group C used a rubber cup and pumice, and Group D used an airborne particle abrasion technique. The abutments were observed using a stereomicroscope after removing the provisional cement. The tensile bond strength was measured after the definitive cementation. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance test (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Group B clearly showed provisional cement remaining, whereas the other groups showed almost no cement. Groups A and B showed a relatively smooth surface. More roughness was observed in Group C, and apparent roughness was noted in Group D. The tensile bond strength tests revealed Group D to have significantly the highest tensile bond strength followed in order by Groups C, A and B. CONCLUSION. A plastic curette and wet gauze alone cannot effectively remove the residual provisional cement on the abutment. The definitive retention increased when the abutments were treated with rubber cup/pumice or airborne particle abraded to remove the provisional cement.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.192-196
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of provisional cement removal by different dentin cleaning protocols (dental explorer, pumice, cleaning bur, Er:YAG laser) on the shear bond strength between ceramic and dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In total, 36 caries-free unrestored human third molars were selected as tooth specimens. Provisional restorations were fabricated and cemented with eugenol-free provisional cement. Then, disc-shaped ceramic specimens were fabricated and randomly assigned to four groups of dentin cleaning protocols (n = 9). Group 1 (control): Provisional cements were mechanically removed with a dental explorer. Group 2: The dentin surfaces were treated with a cleaning brush with pumice Group 3: The dentin surfaces were treated with a cleaning bur. Group 4: The provisional cements were removed by an Er:YAG laser. Self-adhesive luting cement was used to bond ceramic discs to dentin surfaces. Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured using a universal testing machine at a 0.05 mm/min crosshead speed. The data were analyzed using a Kolmogorov Smirnov, One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests to perform multiple comparisons (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS. The dentin cleaning methods did not significantly affect the SBS of ceramic discs to dentin as follows: dental explorer, pumice, cleaning bur, and Er:YAG laser. CONCLUSION. The use of different cleaning protocols did not affect the SBS between dentin and ceramic surfaces.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.296-305
• /
• 2002

The main disadvantage of cement-retained implant restorations is their difficulty in retrievability. Advocates of cemented implant restorations frequently state that retrievability of the restoration can be maintained if a provisional cement is used. The purpose of this study was to find the optimal properties of provisional luting cements and the surface treatment of abutments in single implant abutment system. 30 prefabricated implant abutments, height 8mm, diameter 6mm, 3-degree taper per side, with light chamfer margins were obtained. Three commercially available provisional luting agents which were all zinc oxide eugenol type ; Cavitec, TempBond and TempBond NE were evaluated. No cement served as the control. TempBond along with vaseline, a kind of petrolatum (2:1 ratio) was also evaluated. Ten out of thirty abutments were randomly selected and abutment surfaces were sandblasted with $50{\mu}m$ aluminum oxide. Another ten abutments were sandblasted with $250{\mu}m$ aluminum oxide. A vertical groove, 1 mm deep and 5mm long was cut in each twenty abutments. Ten of them were sandblasted with $50{\mu}m$ aluminum oxide. The full coverage casting crowns were cemented to the abutments with the designated provisional luting agent. Specimens were stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Each specimen was attached to a universal testing machine. A crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min was used to apply a tensile force to each specimen. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Tensile bond strength of provisional luting cements in no surface treatment decreased with the sequence of TempBond NE, TempBond, Cavitec, TempBond with vaseline, no cement. 2. Tensile bond strength more increased by surface treatment. Sandblasting with $250{\mu}m$ aluminum oxide exhibited the highest tensile bond strength in the abutment cemented with TempBond NE and sandblasting with $50{\mu}m$ aluminum oxide exhibited the highest tensile bond strength in cemented with TempBond. 3. In the aspect of a groove formation, tensile bond strength significantly increased in TempBond with vaseline only and the others had no significant effect on tensile bond strength.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2004

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Tensile strength of metal crown cemented with provisional cement have shown clinically difference between metal abutment of implant and natural abutment. PURPOSE: This study was tested to compare the tensile strength of provisional cement on the natural abutment and metal abutment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Out of the 20 premolars that were selected for this experiment, each 10 were prepared of abutments by chamfer and rounded shoulder margin and then duplicated to produce 20 metal abutments that were same to natural teeth. Then, crowns were fabricated to fit the total 40 natural & metal abutments to be cemented by cavitec, to be added of regular, repetitive vertical load, and to be measured of tensile strength by using Universal Test Machine. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference in the tensile strength between the crowns cemented to the natural & metal abutments, but no statistically significant difference was observed between the chamfer and the shoulder gingival margin of the each abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Tensile strength of metal teeth is greater about 2 more times than that of natural teeth when it is cemented with Cavitec.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.75-82
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength of luting cements used with implant retained restorations on to titanium specimens after different surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred twenty disc shaped specimens were used. They were divided into three groups considering the surface treatments (no treatment, sandblasting, and oxygen plasma treatment). Water contact angle of specimens were determined. The specimens were further divided into four subgroups (n=10) according to applied cement types: polycarboxylate cement (Adhesor Carbofine-AC), temporary zinc oxide free cement (Temporary CementZOC), non eugenol provisional cement for implant retained prosthesis (Premier Implant Cement-PI), and non eugenol acrylic-urethane polymer based provisional cement for implant luting (Cem Implant Cement-CI). Shear bond strength values were evaluated. Two-way ANOVA test and Regression analysis were used to statistical analyze the results. RESULTS. Overall shear bond strength values of luting cements defined in sandblasting groups were considerably higher than other surfaces (P<.05). The cements can be ranked as AC > CI > PI > ZOC according to shear bond strength values for all surface treatment groups (P<.05). Water contact angles of surface treatments (control, sandblasting, and plasma treatment group) were 76.17° ± 3.99, 110.45° ± 1.41, and 73.80° ± 4.79, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that correlation between the contact angle of different surfaces and shear bond strength was not strong (P>.05). CONCLUSION. The retentive strength findings of all luting cements were higher in sandblasting and oxygen plasma groups than in control groups. Oxygen plasma treatment can improve the adhesion ability of titanium surfaces without any mechanical damage to titanium structure.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.21-26
• /
• 2016

The requirements for the successful treatment of all-ceramic restorations are not so different from the ones of conventional restorations. "The provisional restoration followed by an adequate tooth reduction" and "the accurately fitting prostheses with corresponding to final impression" can be the examples of them. Nevertheless, the one which all-ceramic restorations are distinguished from conventional restorations is the additional procedure of so called "bonding". In addition to the application of resin cement between "inner surface of restoration and outer surface of abutment", bonding technology can be also applied to the treatment process of "Post and Core" in particular if the abutments are non-vital teeth. Core build-up for all-ceramic crown is conducted with fiber post and tooth colored composite by considering the properties of the restorations transmitting light. I would like to share my clinical experience about "silica based ceramic and non silica based ceramic restoration.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.139-145
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. To evaluate the shear bond strength of resin luting agent to dentin surfaces cleansed with different agents like pumice, ultrasonic scaler with chlorhexidine gluconate, EDTA and the influence of these cleansing methods on wetting properties of the dentin by Axisymmetric drop Shape Analysis - Contact Diameter technique (ADSA-CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty coronal portions of human third molar were prepared until dentin was exposed. Specimens were divided into two groups: Group A and Group B. Provisional restorations made with autopolymerizing resin were luted to dentin surface with zinc oxide eugenol in Group A and with freegenol cement in Group B. All specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hrs and provisional cements were mechanically removed with explorer and rinsed with water and cleansed using various methods (Control-air-water spray, Pumice prophylaxis, Ultrasonic scaler with 0.2% Chlorhexidine gluconate, 17% EDTA). Contact angle measurements were performed to assess wettability of various cleansing agents using the ADSA-CD technique. Bond strength of a resin luting agent bonded to the cleansed surface was assessed using Instron testing machine and the mode of failure noted. SEM was done to assess the surface cleanliness. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey HSD tests (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Specimens treated with EDTA showed the highest shear bond strength and the lowest contact angle for both groups. SEM showed that EDTA was the most effective solution to remove the smear layer. Also, mode of failure seen was predominantly cohesive for both EDTA and pumice prophylaxis. CONCLUSION. EDTA was the most effective dentin cleansing agent among the compared groups.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.359-365
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of temporary restorative and filling material on bonding strength between lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and dentin. 60 extracted human molars were cross-sectioned at occlusal third and were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin. Then the teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 each. Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic is cemented to dentin as follows: after no any application of the provisional materials (Group A), after application of ALIKETM (GC America Inc.)(Group B), after application of Luxatemp$^{(R)}$ Automix plus (DMG, Germany)(Group C), after application of Fermit$^{(R)}$ (Ivoclar Vivadent, Leichtenstein)(Group D). After the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, the shear bond strength of the specimens were measured using UTM (Zwick 1456 41, Zwick, Germany) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The data were analysed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. There were no statistically significant differences of bond strength among the groups. Fracture type was showed mixed type of adhesive and cohesive fracture in most of specimens. Within the limitation of this study, bond strength of adhesive resin cement between lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and dentin was not affected by provisional restorative and filling materials.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.458-467
• /
• 2016

Cement-retained implant prosthesis has several advantages in the esthetic and occlusal aspects. However, the difficulty of the retrievability and the possibility of peri-implantitis induced by the cement excess would be a threatening factor to the implant prognosis. Peri-implantitis resulting from the remaining cement could occur later on to the patients with periodontitis history. Retention can be controlled by selecting the right cement type. Retention of the cement was the strongest in the resin cement, followed by resin modified glass ionomer cement, poIycarboxylate cement, zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cement. Retention of the provisional cement weakened after thermocycling. Other factors such as the abutment number, abutment alignment, height and taper of the abutment can also affect the total retention. To the success of the cement-retained prosthesis, it's important to select the right cement for the clinical purpose. The prosthesis should be fabricated in accordance with the biomechanical requirements. The prosthesis should be cemented with the techniques to reduce the excess cement as much as possible. In addition, the excess cement should be identified using the radiography and carefully removed.