Fracture load and marginal fit of shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 all-ceramic crowns after chewing simulation

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture load and marginal accuracy of crowns made from a shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 ceramic cemented with glass-ionomer or composite cement after chewing simulation. Thirty-two human mandibular molars were randomly divided into two groups. All teeth were prepared for and restored with shrinkage-free ZrSiO4 ceramic crowns (Everest HPC (R), KaVo). The crowns of group A (N = 16) were luted to the teeth using KetacCem (R) and group B (N = 16) were adhesively cemented using Panavia (R) 21EX. Measurements of the marginal accuracy before and after cementation were made using replicas and an image analysis system. All specimens were exposed to 1.2 million cycles of thermo-mechanical fatigue in a chewing simulator. Surviving specimens were subsequently loaded until fracture in a static testing device. Fracture loads (N) were recorded. All specimens survived chewing simulation. The mean fracture loads (+/- s.d.) were Group A, 1622 N (+/- 433); group B, 1957 N (+/- 806). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The marginal gap values before cementation were (mean +/- s.d.): Group A, 32.7 mu m (+/- 6.8); group B, 33.0 mu m (+/- 6.7).The mean marginal gap values after cementation were (+/- s.d.): Group A, 44.6 mu m (+/- 6.7); group B, 46.6 mu m (+/- 7.7). The marginal openings were significantly higher after cementation for both groups (P < 0.05). All test groups demonstrated fracture load and marginal accuracy values within the range of clinical acceptability.

Direct restorative materials use in Australia in 2002

Background: This study aimed to determine the reasons for dentists' choice of materials, in particular amalgam and resin composite, in Australia. Method: A questionnaire was developed to elicit this information. The names and addresses of 1000 dentists in Australia were selected at random. The questionnaire was mailed to these dentists with an explanatory letter and reply-paid envelope. Results: A total of 560 replies were received. Regarding choice of material, 99 per cent of respondents cited clinical indication as an influencing factor, although patients' aesthetic demands (99 per cent), patients' financial situation (82 per cent), and lecturers' suggestions (72 per cent) were also reported to influence respondents' choice of materials. Twelve per cent of respondents used composite 'always', 29 per cent 'often', 32 per cent 'sometimes', 23 per cent 'seldom' and 4 per cent 'never' in extensive load-bearing cavities in molar teeth. For composite restorations in posterior teeth, 84 per cent 'always', 'often' or 'sometimes' used the total etch technique, 84 per cent used a thick glass-ionomer layer and 36 per cent never used rubber dam. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents reported a decreased use of amalgam over the previous five years. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents agreed with the statement 'discontinuation of amalgam restricts a dentist's ability to adequately treat patients'. Seventy-five per cent considered that the growth in the use of composites increased the total cost of oral health care. Conclusions: Of the respondents from Australia 73 per cent place large composite restorations in molar teeth and their choice of material is influenced greatly by clinical indications, and patients' aesthetic demands.