Retention of provisional crowns fabricated from two materials with the use of four temporary cements.
Retention of provisional crowns fabricated from two materials with the use of four temporary cements.
复制标题
使用四种临时粘固剂对由两种材料制成的临时牙冠进行固位。
DOI：
10.1016/s0022-3913(99)80016-x
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Glen H. Johnson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
X. Lepe;Bales Dj;Glen H. Johnson
问题的陈述从业者往往选择树脂材料和临时水泥很少了解他们的效果对临时冠retention.PurposeThis研究评估的保留临时牙列2材料和4临时cements.Methods和materialRecently提取磨牙准备一个平坦的咬合面，4毫米的轴向长度和20度角的收敛。将样本分配至等效组。使用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（临时桥树脂）或双丙烯酸复合材料（Protemp Garant）为每种制备物构建临时冠，然后使用Temp-Bond、Temp-Bond NE、Temrex和实验性氢氧化钙临时骨水泥进行骨水泥固定。第二组使用Temrex进行评估，使用推荐液体的一半。使用2.5 kg的胶结力持续5分钟。在初始工作台设置之后，接着在室温水中24小时，用Instron机械试验机以0.5mm/min移除牙冠。使用2因子ANOVA，α= 0.05（n=10）。剥离模式进行了分析与非参数卡方检验association.ResultsMean脱位应力范围从670至1072 kPa的聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯冠和554至884 kPa的复合材料制成的。临时材料类型的差异几乎是显着的（P= 0.061）和交叉产品相互作用（P= 0.376）不显著，而骨水泥之间存在显著差异，（P=.002）和脱粘模式（P=.0034）。结论排除Temp-Bond以消除交叉产物相互作用，表明聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯冠为19.3%，固位力高于复合冠（P=.015）。当遵循制造商的混合说明时，4种临时骨水泥之间没有统计学显著差异（P= 0.186）。然而，较浓的Temrex比推荐的Temrex混合物和Temp-Bond更具有保持力。
Statement of problemPractitioners often choose resin materials and temporary cements with little understanding about their effect on provisional crown retention.PurposeThis study evaluated the retention of provisional restorations made with 2 materials and cemented with 4 temporary cements.Methods and materialRecently extracted molars were prepared with a flat occlusal surface, 4-mm axial length and 20-degree angle of convergence. Specimens were distributed into equivalent groups. Provisional crowns were constructed for each preparation with polymethyl methacrylate (Temporary Bridge Resin) or bis-acrylic composite (Protemp Garant) and later cemented with Temp-Bond, Temp-Bond NE, Temrex, and an experimental calcium hydroxide temporary cement. A second group with Temrex was evaluated using half the recommended liquid. A cementing force of 2.5 kg for 5 minutes was used. After initial bench set followed by 24 hours in room temperature water, the crowns were removed with an Instron mechanical testing machine at 0.5 mm/min A 2-factor ANOVA was used with α=.05 (n=10). Mode of debonding was analyzed with a nonparametric chi-square test of association.ResultsMean dislodgment stresses ranged from 670 to 1072 kPa for polymethyl metharylate crowns and 554 to 884 kPa for those made of composite. Differences were nearly significant for the type of provisional material (P=.061) and the cross-product interaction (P=.376) was not significant, whereas there were significant differences among the cements (P=.002) and the mode of debonding (P=.0034).ConclusionsExcluding Temp-Bond to eliminate a cross-product interaction demonstrated that the polymethyl methacrylate crowns were 19.3% more retentive than the composite crowns (P=.015). There was no statistically significant difference among the 4 temporary cements when the manufacturer's mixing instructions were followed (P=.186). However, the thicker consistency Temrex was more retentive than the recommended Temrex mix and Temp-Bond.