ABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Provision of partial and complete dentures constructed from resin is commonplace and a satisfactory outcome requires the consideration of the properties of the resin, the oral tissues and prosthodontic principles. This second of a two-part series examines the advantages and disadvantages of flexible nylon denture base resins, which have found popularity for the provision of partial dentures. Adverse effects of denture base resins are examined and the benefits and shortcomings of softliners are explored. Chairside adjustment and polishing, and denture hygiene are also discussed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of contemporary denture base resin systems will help to achieve optimal outcomes in removable prosthodontics.
Subject(s)
Dental Materials/chemistry , Denture Bases , Denture, Partial , Nylons/chemistry , Acrylic Resins/adverse effects , Acrylic Resins/chemistry , Allergens/adverse effects , Biocompatible Materials/adverse effects , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Dental Abutments , Dental Clasps , Dental Disinfectants/chemistry , Dental Materials/adverse effects , Dental Polishing/methods , Denture Cleansers/chemistry , Denture Design , Denture Liners , Denture Retention , Humans , Nylons/adverse effects , Oral Hygiene , Pliability , Silicone Elastomers/chemistry , Stomatitis, Denture/etiology , Surface Properties , TorqueABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Provision of partial and complete dentures constructed from resin is commonplace and a satisfactory outcome requires the consideration of the properties of the resin, the oral tissues and prosthodontic principles. Conventional acrylic resin has been widely adopted as a popular denture base material since the 1930s. In this first of a two-part series, the benefits and shortcomings of acrylic resin are discussed alongside contemporary 'enhancements' to the material which can improve its properties. In the second part of the series, flexible and other alternative denture base resins, soft-linings, adverse effects of denture base materials and maintenance will be discussed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of contemporary denture base resin systems will help to achieve optimal outcomes in removable prosthodontics.
Subject(s)
Acrylic Resins/chemistry , Dental Materials/chemistry , Denture Bases , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Biomechanical Phenomena , Dental Restoration Failure , Denture Design , Denture, Complete , Denture, Partial, Removable , Elastic Modulus , Esthetics, Dental , Glass/chemistry , Humans , Mouth Mucosa/anatomy & histology , Pliability , Polyethylene/chemistry , Polymethyl Methacrylate/chemistry , Prosthesis Coloring , Surface PropertiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To establish whether simplified adhesives (self-etch) are as clinically effective as conventional adhesives (etch-and-rinse) with multiple application steps for treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). NULL HYPOTHESIS: there is no difference in the clinical effectiveness of the four different bonding strategies: Three-step etch-and-rinse; Two-step etch-and-rinse; Two-step self-etch; One-step self-etch for treatment of NCCLs. SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched including: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, studies were identified by handsearching of selected journals. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), with at least 18 months follow-up were selected. The primary outcome was loss of retention/restoration loss, with marginal adaptation and marginal discolouration as secondary outcomes. Criteria for quality assessment included: random sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of outcome assessment; and information on withdrawals. Twenty six studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. In general, studies were not of sufficient quality to fully address the objectives of this review. CONCLUSION: There is not enough evidence to support one adhesive or bonding strategy over another for treatment of NCCLs. Consequently, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be supported or rejected with the data currently available. There is a need for better standardisation and reporting of randomised controlled trials investigating adhesive performance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Studies with low overall risk of bias demonstrated good clinical performance for adhesives with all four bonding strategies. However, included studies showed wide variation between adhesives of the same category.
Subject(s)
Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Dentin-Bonding Agents/classification , Tooth Cervix/pathology , Tooth Wear/therapy , Acid Etching, Dental/methods , Dental Bonding/methods , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Selection of a luting material for optimal cementation of indirect restorations requires the consideration of several factors relating to the properties of both the cement and of the restoration. Contemporary restorations (for example, dentine-bonded crowns or resin-retained bridges) often rely on bonding, and advances in dental materials science have resulted in simplified resin systems. Their ease of use and other favourable properties also offer advantages when used for more conventional restorations. Traditional luting cements remain commonplace and their benefits and shortcomings are discussed in terms of handling and clinical performance. Developments and trends in adhesive dentistry are explored. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Luting cement selection and application is integral to the optimal performance of indirect restorations.
