STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Residual provisional cement and debris on prepared teeth may have the potential to negatively influence the performance of the definitive luting agent. PURPOSE: This in vivo study quantified the adherence of provisional cement to abutment teeth prepared with 1 of 2 textures (coarse or fine) and cleaned with 1 of 3 common cleansing techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred ten provisional restorations in 22 patients were luted to maxillary anterior abutment teeth. The teeth were prepared for complete veneer restorations with either a coarse-grit diamond bur or a coarse-grit diamond bur followed by a fine-grit diamond bur. After removal of the restoration, abutment teeth were randomly cleansed with either a No. 23 dental explorer and air-water spray, a prophy cup with fine flour pumice, or a cotton pellet soaked in chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.12%. After the abutments were cleansed, they were evaluated intraorally under a light microscope (magnification, x64) by 2 blinded examiners. The teeth were given scores based on the number of specks of residual cement found on the surface after the cleansing techniques were performed. Pearson correlation coefficients (alpha=.96), 3-way analysis of variance, and post hoc Scheffé tests (P<.05) were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: As determined with Pearson correlation coefficient, the interexaminer reliability was alpha=.96. Three-way analysis of variance revealed significant effects for the cleansing techniques but not for the interaction between cleansing techniques and preparation texture. A post hoc Scheffé test showed that the pumice cleansing technique (1.8 specks/tooth) was significantly better than the explorer or the cotton pellet/chlorhexidine gluconate technique (3.6 and 3.5 specks/tooth, respectively) (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, abutment teeth cleansed with a prophy cup and flour pumice exhibited the least amount of residual provisional cement.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Residual provisional cement and debris on prepared teeth may have the potential to negatively influence the performance of the definitive luting agent. PURPOSE: This in vivo study quantified the adherence of provisional cement to abutment teeth prepared with 1 of 2 textures (coarse or fine) and cleaned with 1 of 3 common cleansing techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred ten provisional restorations in 22 patients were luted to maxillary anterior abutment teeth. The teeth were prepared for complete veneer restorations with either a coarse-grit diamond bur or a coarse-grit diamond bur followed by a fine-grit diamond bur. After removal of the restoration, abutment teeth were randomly cleansed with either a No. 23 dental explorer and air-water spray, a prophy cup with fine flour pumice, or a cotton pellet soaked in chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.12%. After the abutments were cleansed, they were evaluated intraorally under a light microscope (magnification, x64) by 2 blinded examiners. The teeth were given scores based on the number of specks of residual cement found on the surface after the cleansing techniques were performed. Pearson correlation coefficients (alpha=.96), 3-way analysis of variance, and post hoc Scheffé tests (P<.05) were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: As determined with Pearson correlation coefficient, the interexaminer reliability was alpha=.96. Three-way analysis of variance revealed significant effects for the cleansing techniques but not for the interaction between cleansing techniques and preparation texture. A post hoc Scheffé test showed that the pumice cleansing technique (1.8 specks/tooth) was significantly better than the explorer or the cotton pellet/chlorhexidine gluconate technique (3.6 and 3.5 specks/tooth, respectively) (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, abutment teeth cleansed with a prophy cup and flour pumice exhibited the least amount of residual provisional cement.
Authors: R Anusha; M C Suresh Sajjan; A V Rama Raju; D Bheemalingeswararao; Nukalamarri Om Brahma Prasad Chary Journal: J Indian Prosthodont Soc Date: 2019 Apr-Jun