BACKGROUND: In this article, the authors present clinical factors associated with the type of cement practitioners use for restoration of single-unit crowns. METHODS: A total of 202 dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recorded clinical details (including cement type) used for 3,468 single-unit crowns. The authors classified crowns as bonded if the dentist used a resin cement. The authors used mixed-model logistic regression to assess the associations between various clinical factors and the dentist's decision to bond. RESULTS: A total of 38.1% of crowns were bonded, and 61.9% were nonbonded; 39.1% (79 of 202) of dentists never bonded a crown, and 20.3% (41 of 202) of dentists bonded every crown in the study. Crowns with excessive occlusal reduction (as judged by laboratory technicians) were more likely to be bonded (P = .02); however, there was no association with bonding and excessive taper (P = .15) or axial reduction (P = .08). Crowns were more likely to be bonded if they were fabricated from leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (76.5%) or lithium disilicate (70.8%) than if they were fabricated from layered zirconia (38.8%), full-contour zirconia (30.1%), full metal (14.7%), or porcelain-fused-to-metal (13.8%) (P < .01) restorative material. There was no significant association between choice to bond and crown margin location (P = .35). Crowns in the anterior maxilla were more likely to be bonded (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Excessive occlusal tooth preparation, anterior location of a crown, and the use of glass ceramic crowns were associated significantly with the decision to bond. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this study, the authors identified factors significantly associated with the clinical decision made by practicing dentists when selecting a cement for restoration of single-unit crowns.
BACKGROUND: In this article, the authors present clinical factors associated with the type of cement practitioners use for restoration of single-unit crowns. METHODS: A total of 202 dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recorded clinical details (including cement type) used for 3,468 single-unit crowns. The authors classified crowns as bonded if the dentist used a resin cement. The authors used mixed-model logistic regression to assess the associations between various clinical factors and the dentist's decision to bond. RESULTS: A total of 38.1% of crowns were bonded, and 61.9% were nonbonded; 39.1% (79 of 202) of dentists never bonded a crown, and 20.3% (41 of 202) of dentists bonded every crown in the study. Crowns with excessive occlusal reduction (as judged by laboratory technicians) were more likely to be bonded (P = .02); however, there was no association with bonding and excessive taper (P = .15) or axial reduction (P = .08). Crowns were more likely to be bonded if they were fabricated from leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (76.5%) or lithium disilicate (70.8%) than if they were fabricated from layered zirconia (38.8%), full-contour zirconia (30.1%), full metal (14.7%), or porcelain-fused-to-metal (13.8%) (P < .01) restorative material. There was no significant association between choice to bond and crown margin location (P = .35). Crowns in the anterior maxilla were more likely to be bonded (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS:Excessive occlusal tooth preparation, anterior location of a crown, and the use of glass ceramic crowns were associated significantly with the decision to bond. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this study, the authors identified factors significantly associated with the clinical decision made by practicing dentists when selecting a cement for restoration of single-unit crowns.
Authors: Irena Sailer; Nikolay Alexandrovich Makarov; Daniel Stefan Thoma; Marcel Zwahlen; Bjarni Elvar Pjetursson Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Rahma Mungia; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Cynthia W Garvan; Marc W Heft; Jeffrey L Fellows; Vibeke Qvist; D Brad Rindal; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Gen Dent Date: 2009 Nov-Dec
Authors: Sonia K Makhija; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Paul Benjamin; Joshua S Richman; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Wynne E Norton; Ellen Funkhouser; Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; James D Bader; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Thomas J Hilton; Julie Frantsve-Hawley; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Nathaniel C Lawson; Carlos A Jurado; Chan-Te Huang; Geoffrey P Morris; John O Burgess; Perng-Ru Liu; Keith E Kinderknecht; Chee Paul Lin; Daniel A Givan Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 2.752