Journal of Scientific Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Effect of De-Sensitizers on the Retention of Full Veneer Metal Crowns in Tooth Preparations with Varying Tapers -An In vitro Study

Manoharan PS, Ajay R, Balasubramanian R

Keywords : de-sensitizers, crown-retention, preparation taper

Citation Information : PS M, R A, R B. Effect of De-Sensitizers on the Retention of Full Veneer Metal Crowns in Tooth Preparations with Varying Tapers -An In vitro Study. 2012; 2 (2):5-10.

DOI: 10.5005/jsd-2-2-5

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).


Background: In addition to the variations in taper of the full crown preparation, application of de-sensitizer may also result in diminished adhesion of adhesive cements to tooth structures. This study evaluated the effect of two commercially available de-sensitizers on the retention of crowns made on standard and tapered tooth preparations. Methods: Thirty freshly extracted maxillary first premolars were embedded in acrylic resin blocks. They were divided into two groups (n=15). Group I: Prepared with 3 degrees taper. Group II: Prepared with 15 degrees taper. Nickel-chromium copings were cast with a loop at the occlusal surface for tensile testing after luting with resin-modified glass ionomer cement [Fujicem]. Each group was assigned to three subgroups [n= 5 each] according to de-sensitizers used prior to luting. Subgroup I: Systemp® de-sensitizer [Ivoclor Vivadent], Subgroup II: Oxalate de-sensitizer [Prime Dental® products Pvt. Ltd.], and Subgroup III: Control [untreated]. One-way Analysis of Variance [ANOVA] was used as the statistical test of significance. Results: In Group I and II, resin-modified glass ionomer cement exhibited greater mean value retention with Systemp de-sensitizer [206.00±8.22 N and 97.00±2.74 N respectively], followed by the control [149.00±4.18 N and 92.00±2. 74 N respectively]. In both, Oxalate de-sensitizer recorded the lowest mean [110.00±3.54 N and 54.00±6.52 N respectively]. Discussion: Following tooth preparation, irrespective of the taper, de-sensitizers not only reduces post-operative tooth sensitivity but also influence the bond strength of the luting agent.

PDF Share
  1. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed partial prosthodontics. 4th edition. Elsevier; 2006. pp 3-41.
  2. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd edition. Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc; 1997. pp 1-10.
  3. Morgano SM, Garwin PM. Diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Malone WFP, Koth DL, Cavazos E, Kaiser DA, Morgano SM. Tylman's theory and practice of fixed prosthodontics. 8th edition. Ishiyaku Euro America; 1997. pp 1-24.
  4. Nordlander J, Weir D, Stoffer W, Shigeru O. The taper of clinical preparations for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60: 148-51.
  5. Consani S, Guzela J, Sobrinho IC, Sinhireti MAC, Sousa-Neto MD. Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermo-cycling. Braz Dent J 2003; 14: 193-96.
  6. Ebru Sümer, Yalçın Değer. Contemporary Permanent Luting Agents Used in Dentistry: A Literature Review. Int Dent Res 2011; 1:26-31.
  7. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, and Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301.
  8. Avery JK. Dentin. Orban's oral histology and embryology. In: Bhaskar SN, editor. 11th edition. Elsevier; 1991. pp 108.
  9. Brannstrom M. The Hydrodynamic Theory of Dentinal Pain: Sensation in Preparations, Caries, and the Dentinal Crack Syndrome. J Endod 1986;12: 453-57.
  10. Mausner K, Goldstein GR, and Georgescu M. Effect of two dentinal desensitizing agents on relation of complete cast coping using four cements. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75: 129-34.
  11. Zaimoglu A, and Aydin K. An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 450-57.
  12. Sanjay M, Vivek A, Bhoomika A. Dentin Hypersensitivity: Recent trends in management. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13:218-24.
  13. Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 1984;9:57-68.
  14. El-Mowafy OM, Fenton AH, Forrester N, Milenkovic M. Retention of metal ceramic crowns cemented with resin cements; effects of preparation taper and height. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76: 521-29.
  15. McCabe JF, Walls AWG. Resin modified glass ionomers and related materials. In: McCabe JF, Walls AWG. Applied dental materials.9th edition. Blackwell Publishing; 2008. pp 257-264.
  16. Manuel T, Estrella O, Raquel O, Franklin G. Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:610-15.
  17. Chalermpol L, Platt JA, Cochran MA, Keith MB. In vitro study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load of all-ceramic crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and other luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:699-707.
  18. Shu-Fen Chuang, Ying-Tai Jin, Pei-Fen Tsai, and Tung Yiu Wong. Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86:309-14.
  19. CAG Arrais CAG, Chan DCN, Giannini M. Effects of desensitizing agents on dentinal tubule occlusion. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12(2):144-48.
  20. Kolker JL, Vargas MA, Armstrong SR, Dawson DV. Effect of de-sensitizing agents on dentin permeability and dentin tubule occlusion. J Adhes Dent. 2002;4:211-21.
  21. Vachiramon V, Vargas MA, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Saulo Geraldeli, Fang Qian, Armstrong SR. Effects of oxalate on dentin bond after 3-month simulated pulpal pressure. J Dent 2008;36:178-85.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.