Quantification of all-ceramic crown margin surface profile from try-in to 1-week post-cementation

To use profilometry to assess the margin surface profile of all-ceramic crowns (ACC’s) at try-in and 1-week after cementation with dual-cured resin (DC, RelyX ARC, 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), self-adhesive dual-cured resin (SADC, RelyX Unicem, 3 M ESPE), light-cured resin (LC, RelyX Veneer, 3 M ESPE) or chemically cured resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus, 3 M ESPE) luting cement. Methods: Forty, sound, extracted, human, premolar teeth underwent a standardised preparation for ACC’s. IPS Empress (Ivoclar-Vivadent, Liechtenstein) crowns of standard dimensions were fabricated and 10 luted with each cement and stored in water for 7 days. Three groups of serial profiles were taken, the first of the tooth preparation, the second of the crown margins at try-in and lastly of the crown margins after cementation and 7 days water storage. Results: There were no significant differences in the crown margin surface profile between the four cement groups at try-in. The change in crown margin position between try-in and post-cementation was significantly greater for DC than for LC and RMGI. SADC was not significantly different to the other cements. There were no significant differences in the crown margin extensions between the four cement groups, however most of the IPS Empress ACC’s in this study were underextended but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: IPS Empress ACC’s seated more fully with LC and RMGI than with DC cement

Accountability and Value for Money: A Framework for Exploring the Relationship in Private Finance Initiative Contracts

There is an implicit assumption in the UK Treasury’s publications on public-private partnerships (PPP) – also more commonly known in the United Kingdom as private finance initiative (PFI) - that accountability and value for money (VFM) are related concepts. While recent academic studies on PPP/PFI (from now on as PFI) have focused on VFM, there is a notable absence of studies exploring the ‘presumed’ relationships between accountability and VFM. Drawing on Dubnick’s (Dubnick and Romzek, 1991, 1993; Dubnick, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2005; Dubnick and Justice, 2002) framework for accountability and PFI literature, we develop a research framework for exploring potential relationships between accountability and VFM in PFI projects by proposing alternative accountability cultures, processes and mechanisms for PFI. The PFI accountability model is then exposed to four criteria - warrantability, tractability, measurability and feasibility. Our preliminary interviews provide us guidance in identifying some of the cultures, processes and mechanisms indicated in our model which should enable future researchers to test not only the UK Government’s claimed relationships between accountability and VFM using more specific PFI empirical data, but also a potential relationship between accountability and performance in general.