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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Temporary dental restorative materials for military field use.

New temporary dental restorative materials are an important military requirement. This study compares the critical properties of the currently used temporary material, reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE), with those of a glass ionomer restorative material (GI), a high-viscosity modified glass ionomer material (MGI), and two resin-modified glass ionomer materials (RMGIs). Properties tested included compressive and tensile strength, rigidity, hardness, bond strength, working and setting times, and storage stability. Ranked results for compressive strength, rigidity, and hardness were MGI > GI > RMGI > ZOE; for tensile strength they were RMGI > MGI > GI > ZOE; and for storage stability they were ZOE > MGI > GI > RMGI. Working and setting times were all within reasonable clinical limits, and bond strength was heavily dependent on tooth surface preparation. Although none of the materials tested met all of the ideal requirements, the high-viscosity glass ionomer material offers the most promise for military field use.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed2006

Evaluation of wear and subsequent dye penetration of endodontic temporary restorative materials.

This study evaluated the wear resistance and sealing property of endodontic temporary restoratives by means of functional stressing using a wear simulator. The pulp chamber of 28 extracted molars was opened and filled with cotton, and then the cavity was filled with a temporary material--Caviton, Temporary Pack, Neodyne-alpha, or TERM. Specimens were subjected to a wear test, and data for wear and dye penetration were analyzed by one-way ANOVA independently (p < 0.05). Wear values of Neodyne-alpha (0.09 +/- 0.05 mm) and TERM (0.24 +/- 0.06 mm) were significantly less than those of Caviton (1.79 +/- 0.15 mm) and Temporary Pack (1.02 +/- 0.40 mm). In terms of dye penetration, Neodyne-a leaked significantly less than the other materials at 0.40 +/- 0.32 mm. On the other hand, there were no significant differences between TERM (1.30 +/- 0.57 mm) and Temporary Pack (2.10 +/- 0.12 mm), and between Caviton (2.60 +/- 0.41 mm) and Temporary Pack.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant-supported crowns.

PURPOSE: Provisional cements are commonly used to facilitate retrievability of cement-retained fixed implant restorations. While the functional life spans of these cements are unpredictable, the relative retentiveness of various permanent and provisional cements between dental alloys and titanium abutments is not well documented. The aim of this study was to compare the uniaxial resistance forces of permanent and provisional luting cements used for implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven samples on 4 different abutments (a total of 28 crowns) were cast using a gold-platinum-palladium alloy. The crowns were cemented with 3 different provisional, polycarboxylate, and glass-ionomer cements and 1 zinc phosphate cement. After storage of samples in artificial saliva for 24 hours, tensile tests were performed. RESULTS: While the highest uniaxial resistance forces were recorded for polycarboxylate cements, provisional cements exhibited significantly lower failure strengths (P < .05). The uniaxial resistance force of cements on different abutments exhibited notably different trends; however, more force was required to remove crowns cemented to long abutments (P < .05). DISCUSSION: Glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements may be used to increase the maintenance of implant-supported crowns. Temporary cementation of such restorations may necessitate frequent recementation, particularly for restorations on short abutments. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary cementation may be more suitable for restorations supported by multiple implants.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

Immediate Osseotite implant placement and immediate loading of a provisional restoration of maxillary lateral incisors.

This article describes the immediate replacement of two maxillary lateral incisors teeth after extraction of the left lateral deciduous incisor at the same time with immediate Osseotite implants and immediate restoration. A traumatic dental extraction of a deciduos (b) lateral incisor was performed and a 4mm diameter x 15 mm 3i tapered Osseotite (Implants Innovations, Palm Beach, CA, USA) implant was immediately placed. The other lateral incisor place was treated at the same time and provisional temporary crowns were placed at the same surgery. The provisional crowns did not have any occlusal contact to reduce negative lateral forces. Final impression for definitive restoration was made five months after implant placement veneer ceramic crowns were bonded to the Gingihue abutment (3i, Implants Innovations, Palm Beach, CA) one month later. This article describes the use of immediate implants with immediate loading of Osseotite combined with provisional crowns resulted in an excellent outcome after a two-year follow up period.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Immediate loading of an implant following implant site development using forced eruption: a case report.

In restoring periodontally involved hopeless teeth, implant treatment has been widely used with combinations of various grafting techniques or guided bone regeneration. Instead of traditional surgical procedures, forced tooth eruption may be used successfully for implant site development. In this case, the authors orthodontically erupted a hopeless central incisor with an angular bony defect. Subsequently, they placed an implant immediately after tooth extraction and immediately loaded it with a temporary resin restoration.

Adult↗
PubMed2007

Fracture resistance of various temporary crown materials.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of various provisional crown materials using an in vitro model test system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the present study polycarbonate crowns, prefabricated by the manufacturer (3M Polycarbonate Crown), and the temporary crowns, fabricated in the dental laboratory environment, were fabricated using bis-acryl composite (Protemp II), autopolymerizing PMMA resin (BISICO Temp S), and heat-polymerized PMMA resin (Major C&B-V Dentine). All temporary crowns were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at room temperature prior to testing. The crowns were seated on metal dies, fabricated from Cr-Co alloy (AZ Dental, Konstanz, Germany), and then tested using the indenter of a Hounsfield testing machine (Hounsfield Tensometer, Hounsfield Test Equipment, Raydon, England). The tip of the indenter was located at a position one-third of the way down the inciso-palatine surface at 135 masculine. The data were statistically analyzed for differences using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey HSD test (P < .05). Additionally, the types of failure obtained from the fracture load test were examined using 10x magnification with a stereo microscope. RESULTS: The results of the present study indicated polycarbonate crowns were significantly different from the BISICO Temp S, Protemp II, and Major C&B-V Dentine (P < .05) groups. CONCLUSION: This in vitro study shows polycarbonate crowns may be preferable to the other types of temporary crowns used in this study.

Acrylic Resins↗