PubMed · 4567958
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
F Theuveny. 1972. [A retainer arch without a ring].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4567958/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
There are many different ways to measure the bond strength of direct esthetic restorations to various dental substrates. Unfortunately, most methods cannot measure bond strengths immediately after a restoration has been placed. This lack of clinically-relevant information seriously affects the clinician's ability to select and use various bonding agents and procedures. The aim of this article is to provide a very detailed method for immediate measurement of in vitro bond strengths of direct bonded esthetic restorations. It focuses on the steps that should be taken to select and prepare various tooth substrates for bond strength testing, the steps to "restore" various tooth substrates, and to measure the immediate in vitro bond strength. A fundamental understanding of a standardized testing protocol should provide clinicians with a clearer appreciation of bond strengths associated with various bonding procedures.
This article describes a technique for splinting periodontally compromised teeth and for preventing orthodontically treated teeth from relapsing. The fabrication of a segmented cast-metal resin-bonded splint, with nonrigid connection of the splinted teeth, eliminates the many problems of a conventional multi-unit resin-bonded splint.
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to observe the efficacy of two different composite cements on the prevention of marginal deterioration around adhesive ceramic inlay restorations, under laboratory conditions, and to test the null hypothesis that different luting procedures cannot affect sealing ability of luted inlays. METHODS: Twenty-six standardized mesio-occlusal Class II cavities were prepared in extracted posterior teeth. Class II inlays were fabricated with IPS Empress II system following the manufacturer's instructions. The samples were divided into two groups of 13 teeth each at random. Group 1: The ceramic inlays of Group 1 were luted using Excite DSC and an experimental self-curing resin cement (Multilink, Vivadent); in this group, Excite DSC was self-activated and not light-cured. Group 2: Excite DSC in combination with a dual-curing resin cement (Variolink II, Vivadent) was used (as control). In this group Excite DSC was light-cured for 20s separately, before resin cement application. The 'wet' bonding technique was followed. Three samples of each group were selected at random for SEM observations, while the other 10 samples were processed for marginal leakage. The bonding mechanism to dentin and resin cement thickness was evaluated. RESULTS: Samples of both groups showed resin tag and adhesive lateral branch formation. In Group 1 the hybrid layer was mainly uniform along the interface between dental substrates and adhesive material, and resin cement thickness was between 20 and 85 microm. At the cervical margin no gap was detected. In Group 2 the cement thickness was between 30 and 110 microm and hybrid layer formation was observed along the interface but at the cervical margin it was not always uniform and continuous. Resin tag formation was uniform in both groups. At cervical margins, 80% of Group 1 samples showed a perfect seal at the dentin-cementum margins, and 90% at enamel margins. Group 2 samples showed only 50% of cervical margins free from leakage and 80% at the occlusal enamel margins. Statistically significant differences were found at cervical margins between the two groups, while no significant differences were found at enamel site. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the self-curing adhesive-resin cement combination can properly seal Class II porcelain inlays.