PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DENTAL RESTORATION, TEMPORARY”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

The influence of coronal restoration type on the survival of endodontically treated teeth.

The aim of this study is to investigate the association between coronal restoration type and survival of endodontically treated teeth. A review was performed of treatment records of patients who had endodontic treatment performed in the Department of Restorative Dentistry, University Dental School & Hospital, Cork, Ireland during the period 1993-96. Demographic and dental factors such as age, gender, tooth type, coronal restoration type, and tooth status recorded at a review appointment were recorded. Tooth status at review was defined as 'tooth present' or 'tooth absent' based on the presence or absence of the endodontically treated tooth recorded in the treatment records at a review appointment held a minimum of one year following obturation of the root canal system. Of 176 teeth (166 patients) treated, survival of endodontically treated teeth was significantly more likely where restored with cast restorations (91.7%), amalgam restorations (86.5%), or composite restorations (83.0%), than teeth restored with temporary restorations (34.5%) (p<0.0001) (mean follow-up time 38 months, range 12-60 months). Survival of endodontically treated teeth was found to be associated with permanent coronal restorations. Loss of endodontically treated teeth occurred more often with those restored with temporary restorations (34.5%) than other restoration types (p<0.05).

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

[The modification of the polymerization of composite materials by eugenol-containing temporary fillings].

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of eugenol-containing temporary fillings on the polymerisation of composite materials. Cavities of 2 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth were prepared in enamel as well as in dentine. Immediately after preparation the cavities of the control group were filled with a light curing composite, a chemical curing composite, or a light and chemical curing composite. The cavities of the experimental group were filled with Nobetec (temporary filling material containing zinc-oxide-eugenol). After six weeks, the Nobetec fillings were removed by means of an excavator, the cavities were cleaned with water and filled with one of the above six composites. The specimens were embedded in Epofix and afterwards cut through the center of the filling. The cut surfaces were polished to 3 microns and afterwards (> 4 days) the hardness was measured with a Knoop hardness testing machine at different distances from the cavity wall. The results of the control group and of the experimental group were compared statistically. The polymerisation of five of the six materials was not inhibited by a temporary filling material containing zinc-oxide-eugenol. The difference in hardness for Brilliant Lux (light curing) was fer-highly significant (p < 0.001) between 0 micron and 100 microns from the cavity margin, if the cavity was first filled with a temporary filling material, containing zinc-oxide-eugenol. The results show that there exist certain composite filling materials that are inhibited in their polymerisation by the tested eugenol containing temporary filling material.

Composite Resins↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of eugenol-containing and eugenol-free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations.

Eugenol is known to have a detrimental effect on both composite resin and dentin bonding agents. The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to compare the microleakage among groups of resin-luted inlays when the cavity preparations were pretreated with a eugenol-containing temporary cement, a eugenol-free temporary cement, or no temporary cement. Class 5 inlay preparations (20 per group) were completed in extracted human molars. Following the fabrication of composite resin inlays, the preparations were filled with either a eugenol-based temporary cement, a eugenol-free temporary cement, or no cement. After removal of the cement from the cavity preparations and application of a dentin bonding agent, the composite inlays were luted with a resin cement, thermocycled, stained, sectioned, and evaluated for microleakage under a stereomicroscope. None of the groups exhibited significant leakage at the enamel margins. Both of the groups treated with temporary cement leaked at the nonenamel margins significantly more than the control (no cement) group. No significant difference in leakage was demonstrated between the groups treated with the eugenol-containing and the eugenol-free temporary cements.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1997

Microleakage of temporary restorations after thermocycling and mechanical loading.

The marginal seal of four temporary filling materials in endodontic access cavities was examined in vitro after thermocycling and mechanical loading using dye penetration tests and a quantitative marginal analysis of replicas in the SEM. Class I cavities were prepared in 44 extracted human molars and filled either with Cavit, Kalsogen, IRM, or TERM. After setting the reaction and thermocycling procedure, Cavit showed less microleakage in the dye penetration test and fewer marginal crevices in the quantitative marginal analysis. After loading, two Cavit fillings collapsed into the endodontic cavity. The marginal conditions of TERM were comparable to Cavit after thermocycling and mechanical loading. Kalsogen and IRM restorations demonstrated significantly increased microleakage and a higher percentage of marginal crevices after thermocycling and loading. In contrast to dye penetration tests, the effects of different factors on the marginal integrity of temporary fillings can be examined with the replica technique and quantitative marginal analysis.

Calcium Sulfate↗
PubMed1997

Root canal treatment as a treatment modality for temporary tooth retention in adolescent patients.

In certain cases root canal treatment may be an adequate intermediate therapy, mainly for severely traumatized teeth in adolescent patients that probably cannot be retained permanently. The treatment aims at temporary retention of otherwise hopeless teeth until definite treatment, for example insertion of bridges or dental implants, may be performed. This kind of treatment can help to avoid the application of removable prostheses in young patients. This treatment modality requires intensive information to be presented to the patients and their parents on the benefits and risks of the treatment procedures, endodontic treatment under aseptic conditions respecting the general guidelines for root canal treatment, and a strict recall regimen to avoid occurrence or increase of pathological conditions. Four cases (five teeth) of temporary tooth retention by endodontic treatment are presented.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Microhardness of provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Provisional restorations play a critical role in the success of restorative treatment. Thus, the provisional restoration must maintain its surface integrity throughout the restorative process. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the microhardness of 5 prosthodontic provisional materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cylindrical samples of 3 bis-acryl resin composites (Integrity, Protemp Garant, Temphase) and 2 methyl methacrylate acrylic resins (Jet, Temporary Bridge) were fabricated (n = 5 per material). Specimens were wet-sanded through 600 grit abrasive and stored in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for a total of 14 days. Baseline Knoop hardness (KHN) was measured 24 hours after specimen fabrication. Three microhardness measurements were obtained from each specimen. Knoop hardness was again recorded after 14 days of storage. RESULTS: ANOVA and Duncan's tests (P<.05) indicated a significant difference between the methyl methacrylate type resins and the bis-acryl resin composites at both time intervals. CONCLUSION: The hardness of most materials (Integrity, Protemp Garant, Jet) decreased over time. All of the bis-acryl resin composite materials exhibited superior microhardness over traditional methyl methacrylate (Jet, Temporary Bridge) resins.

Analysis of Variance↗