Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “SILICATE CEMENT”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Indirect composite resin materials for posterior applications.

Indirect composite resin restorations were introduced a number of years ago as possible alternatives to traditional metallic or ceramic-based indirect restorations. However, the earlier formulations did not provide evidence of improvement in mechanical and physical properties over chairside-placed direct composite resin materials. Because they required more tooth structure removal than direct restorations, their use became unpopular and was abandoned by most clinicians. Over the past few years, a new class of composite resin indirect materials has surfaced in the profession. Various technologies have been suggested as reinforcement mechanisms. Fibers, matrix modifications, and an assortment of innovations have been proposed for enhancing indirect composite resin restorations. Applications are from inlay restorations all the way to multi-unit fixed prostheses. This manuscript summarizes some of the progress made in this area. When available, data is presented to provide clinicians with guidelines and indications for the use of these materials.

Bicuspid↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Fiber reinforced composite resin systems.

The Targis/Vectris and Sculpture/FibreKor systems were devised to create a translucent maximally reinforced resin framework for fabrication of crowns, bridges, inlays, and onlays. These materials are esthetic, have translucency similar to castable glass-ceramics such as OPC and Empress, and have fits that are reported to be acceptable in clinical and laboratory trials. These restorations rely on proper bonding to the remaining tooth structure; therefore, careful attention to detail must be paid to this part of the procedure. Cementation procedures should involve silane treatment of the cleaned abraded internal restoration surface, application of bonding agent to the restoration as well as the etched/primed tooth, and finally use of a composite resin. Each manufacturer has a recommended system which has been tested for success with its resin system. These fiber reinforced resins are somewhat different than classical composites, so not all cementation systems will necessarily work with them. Polishing of the restoration can be accomplished using diamond or alumina impregnated rubber wheels followed by diamond paste. The glass fibers can pose a health risk. They are small enough to be inhaled and deposited in the lungs, resulting in a silicosis-type problem. Therefore, if fibers are exposed and ground on, it is extremely important to wear a mask. Also, the fibers can be a skin irritant, so gloves also should be worn. If the fibers become exposed intraorally, they can cause gingival inflammation and may attract plaque. The fibers should be covered with additional composite resin. If this cannot be accomplished, the restoration should be replaced. The bulk of these restorations are formed using a particulate filled resin, similar in structure to conventional composite resins. Therefore, concerns as to wear resistance, color stability, excessive expansion/contraction, and sensitivity remain until these materials are proven in long-term clinical trials. They do hold the promise of minimizing tooth reduction and may be particularly useful in preserving sound tooth structure. Although not the primary intended use, an excellent application is long-term temporization, such as for patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation. The belleGlass/Connect, Ribbond, and GlasSpan materials rely on nonimpregnated polyethylene fibers which have mechanical properties inferior to Vectris and FibreKor. These fibers may be used to greater success as splinting materials, in provisional restorations, and in repair of complete and partial removable dentures.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed2001

Tensile bond strength of composite repairs on Artglass using different surface treatments.

PURPOSE: To determine the tensile bond strength of composite repairs applied to Artglass using different surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blocks of Artglass were embedded in PVC cylinders with self-cure acrylic resin and divided into 18 groups according to the surface treatment. Three mechanical treatments and six chemical treatments were combined. Mechanical treatments were: sandpaper, diamond bur and microetch. Chemical treatments were: Prime & Bond 2.1 (PB) only, phosphoric acid+PB, hydrofluoric acid (applied for 1 or 3 minutes) +PB, Artglass Liquid only and silane+PB. After surface treatment, a composite truncated cone (Charisma, shade A3) was built. Tensile test was carried out after 24 hrs storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C. Failure mode was assessed using a x 10 stereomicroscope. Artglass surfaces treated mechanically and their combination with phosphoric acid and hydrofluoric acid were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that there was no statistical difference in bond strength among the three mechanical treatments used, except for the groups where Artglass Liquid and silane were used. The use of phosphoric acid and Artglass Liquid did not improve the bond strength of the specimens compared to the groups where only PB was applied, regardless of the mechanical treatment. Hydrofluoric acid treatment for 1 and 3 minutes reduced the bond strength significantly compared to the other chemical treatments. The association of silane with microetching resulted in a statistically higher bond strength compared to all the other experimental groups. SEM analysis showed that the application of phosphoric acid failed to promote changes in mechanically treated samples. On the other hand, when hydrofluoric acid was associated to either diamond bur or microetching, the topography created by the mechanical treatment was at least partially destroyed.

Air Abrasion, Dental↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of conventionally cemented fiber-reinforced composite three-unit FPDs.

PURPOSE: This in vitro study investigated the marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of three-unit fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures (FPD) luted with two different resin-modified glass-ionomers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 FPDs were constructed from the glass fiber-reinforced materials FibreKor/Sculpture, Vectris/Targis, or the polyethylene fiber system BelleGlass/Connect (n = 16 for each brand). The reconstructions were conventionally luted on human molars using resin-modified ProTecCEM or Fuji Plus and then exposed to thermocycling and mechanical loading. RESULTS: During thermocycling and mechanical loading, cementation failed in seven of eight FibreKor or BelleGlass FPDs and in one of eight Vectris/Targis FPDs luted with ProTecCEM. All Fuji Plus-cemented FPDs showed no signs of damage or cementation loss. The fracture resistance of the remaining FPDs was as follows: Vectris/Targis-ProTecCem 1,361 +/- 360 N, Vectis/Targis-Fuji Plus 923 +/- 207 N, BelleGlass/Connect 940 +/- 155 N, and FibreKor/Sculpture 524 +/- 202 N. The marginal adaptation of the cement-tooth interface deteriorated by 13% to 21% for all reconstructions after stress application, which was not statistically significant. The crown-cement interface had a significantly greater marginal gap only with the combination of FibreKor and Fuji Plus after stress simulation (change 33%). CONCLUSION: Conventional cementation of fiber-reinforced FPDs can lead to cementation loss. The marginal adaptation and fracture resistance deteriorated in comparison to adhesively cemented reconstructions.

Cementation↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Strength and elastic modulus of fiber-reinforced composites used for fabricating FPDs.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the flexural strength and elastic modulus of a new fiber-reinforced composite used for the fabrication of inlay-retained fixed partial dentures (FPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of six materials were used: Vectris, FibreKor, and an experimental material, BR-100, were the types of glass fiber preimpregnated with resin used for making the frameworks; Targis, Sculpture, and Estenia were used as the veneering composites. Five specimens of each material were prepared. Flexural strength and elastic modulus were determined using the three-point bending test. In addition, laminate specimens were fabricated by combination of the veneering composite and framework materials (Targis/Vectris, Sculpture/FibreKor, and Estenia/BR-100), and fracture loads of these specimens were determined. Laminate specimens were fabricated with three different framework thicknesses for Estenia/BR-100. RESULTS: Estenia had the greatest strength and highest modulus of elasticity of the veneering composites. All three framework materials had flexural strength values (567 to 686 MPa) more than three times as great as those of the veneering composites (132 to 193 MPa). Of the laminate specimens, the Estenia/BR-100 with a framework thickness of 1.0 mm had a fracture load more than 50% greater than Targis/Vectris and Sculpture/FibreKor. CONCLUSION: The combination of the experimental framework material BR-100 and the composite Estenia showed higher fracture loads than the other combinations tested.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed1992

Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.

Amalgam (ANA 2000), composite resin (Occlusin), and glass ionomer cement (ChemFil) were compared in conventional Class II restorations in second primary molars. Twenty-five restorations of each material were placed by two dentists in 50 patients. The restorations were evaluated during a three year period using the USPHS criteria. Great differences could be found between the materials. The failure rate (USPHS ratings Charlie) was after three years 8 per cent for the amalgam, 16 per cent for the composite resin and 60 per cent for the glass ionomer cement restorations.

Calcium Hydroxide↗
PubMed1991

[SEM study on the finishing of glass ionomer cement filling surfaces].

The surfaces produced by different finishing techniques at two different time intervals following placement of three glass ionomer cements are compared by SEM-evaluation. All finishing procedures impaired the surface texture obtained under a matrix strip. Finishing of glass-ionomer cement restorations is best performed with flexible discs at 24 hours after placement. Initial finishing after 15 minutes using water spray is detrimental to the glass-ionomer cement surface. A useful procedure is to apply a lubricant during finishing of the cement.

Cermet Cements↗
PubMed1997

Achieving functional restorations utilizing a new Ceromer system.

The advent of pressed ceramic restorations (IPS Empress, Ivoclar Williams, Amherst, NY) has driven dental therapy to continuously strive for more aesthetic and functional materials. The dental profession requires restorations to exhibit strength, natural color, wear resistance, marginal integrity, and ease of fabrication in the restorative therapies selected. With the introduction of a new ceromer and fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) system (Targis System, Ivoclar Williams, Amherst, NY), the replacement of a single tooth or multiple teeth with a FRC, metal-free bridge is now a suitable alternative to conventional dental therapy. This presentation will review the clinical protocol, material properties, and aesthetic characteristics of this new generation of restorative material.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Ceromer/FRC technology: the future of biofunctional adhesive aesthetic dentistry.

With recent advancements in adhesive technology, restorative materials have evolved to an enhanced level of aesthetics while enabling more conservative cavity preparations and promoting reinforcement of the remaining tooth structure. These restorations have included both anterior and posterior treatment modalities applied directly and indirectly. With a growing awareness on the part of many patients of the possible cosmetic treatment alternatives came the desire for aesthetic, metal-free, durable restorations. This presentation discusses the material properties and clinical protocol of a new material which combines a ceramic optimized polymer with a fiber-reinforced framework for durable, aesthetic anterior and posterior restorations.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The influence of different cementation modes on the fracture resistance of feldspathic ceramic crowns.

One hundred twenty pressed feldspathic ceramic crowns were luted to 20 steel dies using six different cementation modes. Fracture resistance was tested under an angle of 45 degrees and was determined as the maximal fracture load. Crowns were tested with luting agent only (groups A and C) and after etching with hydrofluoric acid, silanating, and the application of a bonding agent (groups B, D, E, and F). The resulting means were: phosphate cement 294.3 (A) and 282.2 (B); glass-ionomer cement 217.2 (C) and 255.4 (D); resin composite 382.2 (E) and 687.6 (F). Statistical analysis revealed significantly greater fracture resistance (P < .01) of resin luted crowns. Bonding to the die almost doubled the fracture resistance. Conditioning of the inner surfaces of the crowns did not improve the fracture resistance of crowns luted using zinc phosphate or glass-ionomer cements.

Acrylates↗