ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:IPS e.max Presshas an excelent biocompati bility and corrosion resistance, which obtains satisfactory clinical outcomes on dental veneers, inlay and onlay restorations. But little is reported on molar monolithic restoration by IPS e.max Presscrown. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the clinical effects of IPS e.max Press crown on molar repair after root canal therapy. METHODS:Totaly 215 patients with 324 affected molars, including 88 males and 127 females, aged 22-58 years old, were enroled for repairing with IPS e.max Presscrown. Then the color, shape, fracture and edge coloring of the restoration, marginal discrepancy, secondary caries and gingival health status were assessed after a 3-year folow-up. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:During the folow-up, 324 dental restorations met the class A standards for color, marginal discrepancy, shape as wel as secondary caries. In addition,3restoration swere fractured, 14 restorations had margin coloring, and 8 restorations appeared to have gingival inflammation. More than 95% restorations were scored grade A. These results indicate that IPS e.max Press crown applied to molar repair after root canal therapy can achieve ideal outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:Both Ms Coat and Green OrTM desensitizers can seal dentinal tubules effectively, isolate the dentinal tubule from external stimuli and also reduce the dentinal hypersensitivity. The scholars around the world have discussed their effects from the descriptive and qualitative view. OBJECTIVE:To quantitatively assess and compare the sealing effects of Ms Coat and Green OrTM desensitizers on dentine tubules. METHODS:Thirty fresh human third molar samples were made into 3-mm dentin specimens that were treated with 17% EDTA for 2 minutes and randomly divided into three groups: Ms Coat group, Green OrTM group and control group with no treatment. In the former two groups, MS Coat desensitizer and Green OrTM desensitizer were applied respectively on the dentin surfaces. Scanning electron microscope was used to observe the dentin surface and longitudinal sections. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Surface observation: In the control group, al of the dentinal tubules were exposed; in the MS Coat group, it was observed that almost al the dentinal tubules were obliterated; in the Green OrTM group, the dentin tubules were covered with irregular crystaline substance and only a smal number of exposed dentine tubules were visible but narrowed obviously. (2) Longitudinal profile observation: In the control group, the dentin tubules were strip-shaped and arranged in paralel without any blockage; in the MS coat group, the tubules were covered with dense sediments, and the dentinal tubules were basicaly closed; in the Green OrTM group, there were scaly crystaline material deposited within the dentinal tubules. Dentinal diameter and number of dentinal tubules were ranked as folows: control group > Green OrTM group > MS Coat group (P < 0.05). Both Ms Coat and Green OrTM desensitizers can occlude the tubules effectively, and moreover, the MS Coat is superior to the Green OrTM.