K Klosa1, G Meyer2, M Kern1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 16, D-24105, Kiel, Germany. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 16, D-24105, Kiel, Germany. gmeyer@proth.uni-kiel.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to evaluate practices of dentists regarding adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations over a period of 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a questionnaire regarding adhesive cementation procedures for all-ceramic restorations. Restorations were distinguished between made out of silicate ceramic or oxide ceramic. The questionnaire was handed out to all dentists participating in a local annual dental meeting in Northern Germany. The returned questionnaires were analyzed to identify incorrect cementation procedures based upon current evidence-based technique from the scientific dental literature. The survey was conducted three times in 2007, 2011, and 2015 and their results were compared. RESULTS: For silicate ceramic restorations, 38-69 % of the participants used evidence-based bonding procedures; most of the incorrect bonding methods did not use a silane containing primer. In case of oxide ceramic restorations, most participants did not use air-abrasion prior to bonding. Only a relatively low rate (7-14 %) of dentists used evidence-based dental techniques for bonding oxide ceramics. CONCLUSION: In adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations, the practices of surveyed dentists in Northern Germany revealed high rates of incorrect bonding. During the observation period, the values of evidence-based bonding procedures for oxide ceramics improved while the values for silicate ceramics declined. Based on these results, some survey participants need additional education for adhesive techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Neglecting scientifically accepted methods for adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations may result in reduced longevity of all-ceramic restorations.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to evaluate practices of dentists regarding adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations over a period of 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a questionnaire regarding adhesive cementation procedures for all-ceramic restorations. Restorations were distinguished between made out of silicate ceramic or oxide ceramic. The questionnaire was handed out to all dentists participating in a local annual dental meeting in Northern Germany. The returned questionnaires were analyzed to identify incorrect cementation procedures based upon current evidence-based technique from the scientific dental literature. The survey was conducted three times in 2007, 2011, and 2015 and their results were compared. RESULTS: For silicate ceramic restorations, 38-69 % of the participants used evidence-based bonding procedures; most of the incorrect bonding methods did not use a silane containing primer. In case of oxide ceramic restorations, most participants did not use air-abrasion prior to bonding. Only a relatively low rate (7-14 %) of dentists used evidence-based dental techniques for bonding oxide ceramics. CONCLUSION: In adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations, the practices of surveyed dentists in Northern Germany revealed high rates of incorrect bonding. During the observation period, the values of evidence-based bonding procedures for oxide ceramics improved while the values for silicate ceramics declined. Based on these results, some survey participants need additional education for adhesive techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Neglecting scientifically accepted methods for adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations may result in reduced longevity of all-ceramic restorations.
Authors: Bin Yang; Michael Scharnberg; Stefan Wolfart; Anne C Quaas; Klaus Ludwig; Rainer Adelung; Matthias Kern Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.368