List of Articles by MeSH
CEMENTATION
- Novaković M, Krmpotić M. Cementing of Bridges on Implants or Fixation with Screws?. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2005;39(3):275.
[details]
[close]
Full Text
| Title in English: |
Cementing of Bridges on Implants or Fixation with Screws? |
| Title in Croatian: |
Cementiranje mosta na usadcima ili fiksacija vijcima? |
| Type of Article: |
congress abstract |
| MeSH: |
DENTAL IMPLANTATION
CEMENTATION
DENTURE, PARTIAL, FIXED |
| Abstract: |
The question of whether to cement or fix a bridge on implants by means of screws is still one of the frequent dilemmas in implantology. In the early days of implantology fixation with screws was considered the only adequate solution. With the development of the profession, primarily biomechanics and componentistics, cementing has increasingly become the method of choice. Both possibilities are described in the presentation, with emphasis on the features in clinical application. Fixation with screws represents a simple, fast and inexpensive method, while cementing is more suitable in aesthetically demanding cases and in the case of extreme vestibular inclination or disparallelism of the implant. Two typical cases are shown of distal bridges in the upper jaw, of which one is cemented and the other fixed with screws. |
- Glavina D, Škrinjarić I, Majstorović M. Marginal Adaptation of Cerec Ceramic Veneers after Cementing with Different Materials. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2003;37(2):147-58.
[details]
[close]
Full Text
| Title in English: |
Marginal Adaptation of Cerec Ceramic Veneers after Cementing with Different Materials |
| Title in Croatian: |
Rubna prilagodba Cerec keramičkih faseta nakon cementiranja različitim materijalima |
| Type of Article: |
original scientific paper |
| MeSH: |
MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY)
DENTAL VENEERS
CEMENTATION
DENTAL CEMENTS |
| Abstract: |
The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of marginal adaptation and gap width of Cerec ceramic veneers after cementation with two different materials (Tetric and Compolute). The study was carried out on 24 teeth, divided into groups of 12 on which ceramic veneers were fabricated. The first 12 veneers were cemented with a composite material with microparticles (Tetric) and the other 12 using dual composite cement (Compolute). The samples were cut in the vestibulooral and mesiodistal direction and analyzed with an OPTON SV 8 stereomicroscope, with 160x magnification. Ideal adaptation of veneers after cementation with Tetric occured in 97.9% and good in 2.1% of cases. In the group cemented with Compolute ideal adaptation was determined in 95.8% and good in 4.2% of the samples. In neither group was poor adaptation established. In samples cemented with Tetric in vestibulooral direction complete adaptation was observed in 39.6%, negative adaptation in 43.8% (veneer was not completely seated on the cavity wall), and positive in 16.7% of the samples (veneer was higher than the surface of the prepared cavity). In the mesiodistal direction complete adaptation was recorded in 45.8% of the samples, negative in 39.6% and positive in 14.6%. After cementation with Compolute in the vestibulooral direction ideal adaptation was established in 51.1%, negative in 38.3% and positive in 10.6% of cases. In the mesiodistal direction complete adaptation was recorded in 52.1%, negative in 45.8% and positive in 2.1%. Difference in the quality of veneer adaptation in the vestibulooral and mesiodistal direction was not significant. Mean value of variations in the vestibulooral direction amounted to negative 493.80 μm and positive 388.96 μm. Mean value of variations in the mesiodistal direction amounted to negative 411.70 μm and positive 347.63 μm. Mean gap width after cementation with Tetric in the vestibulooral direction was 247.69 μm, and in the mesiodistal direction 156.56 μm. For the veneers cemented with Compolute mean gap width was 257.62 μm in the vestibulooral and 169.08 μm in the mesiodistal direction, which was not significant. The obtained results indicate that both materials are suitable for cementation of Cerec ceramic veneers. |
- Grgurević J, Sokler K, Sandev S, Kuna T, Ivasović Z, Božić D. Comparison of the Bond Strengths of Zinc Phosphate, Glass-Ionomer, and Compomere Cement for Dowel Cementation. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2002;36(2):179-89.
[details]
[close]
Full Text
| Title in English: |
Comparison of the Bond Strengths of Zinc Phosphate, Glass-Ionomer, and Compomere Cement for Dowel Cementation |
| Title in Croatian: |
Usporedba vezne čvrstoće cink-fosfatnog, stakleno-ionomernog i kompomernog cementa za cementiranje nadogradnji |
| Type of Article: |
original scientific paper |
| MeSH: |
DENTAL CEMENTS
GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS
COMPOMERS
POST AND CORE TECHNIQUE
CEMENTATION |
| Abstract: |
In spite of numerous previous studies, there is no final conclusion onwhich type of cement is the best for dowel cementation. The purpose of this study was to compare the retention of dowels cemented with three different cement types: zinc phosphate, glass-ionomer, and compomere.Thirty teeth were divided into 3 groups, root-canals were preparedto ISO 140, to 7 mm depth and dowels were cemented. After 40 hours the tensile force needed to dislodge the dowels was recorded. For zinc phosphate it was 175±33.17 N, for glass-ionomer 235.5±46.93 N, and for compomere 275.63±96.42 N.The dowels cemented with compomere had significantly higher tensilestrength than those cemented with zinc phosphate or glass-ionomercement. Glass-ionomer cement had significantly higher tensile strength than zinc phosphate cement. The advantages of zinc-phosphate are its low price and simple usage. Thus, in many clinical situations it may be the cement of choice. |
- Lazić B, Kosovel Z. [The adhesiveness of various cements under laboratory conditions]. Acta Stomatol Croat. 1986;20(Suppl):61-6.
[details]
[close]
|