| Abstrakt: |
Objectives: To evaluate three temporary luting cements in terms of their restoration loss rates, biological interactions, esthetic properties, and handling characteristics. Materials and methods: 75 adults requiring fixed prosthodontics voluntarily participated in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. After preparation, temporary restorations were luted with a randomly selected temporary luting cement (either Provicol QM Plus (PQP), Bifix Temp (BT), or Provicol QM Aesthetic (PQA)). Clinical examinations were performed one to two weeks after cementation. The following criteria were evaluated: tooth vitality, percussion, hypersensitivity, gingival bleeding, odor formation, esthetics, cement handling, removability, cleanability, and retention loss. Antagonistic teeth served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s chi-square and Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate. Results: The overall loss rate of temporary restorations was 16.0%, showing no cement-specific differences. Postoperative hypersensitivity occurred in 8% of cases regardless of cement type. Esthetic impairment was reported by 31% of the PQP-fixed restorations, compared with 4.0% and 4.2% of the BT and PQA-bonded restorations. Cement application was reported to be easy in 100% of cases, excess removal in 88–96%, depending on the cement used. Conclusions: The choice of luting material affects the esthetic appearance of a temporary restoration and should be considered, particularly in restorations in esthetically demanding areas. No significant differences between the cements were identified regarding biocompatibility, handling, and loss rate. Clinical relevance: Translucent cements can help to reduce color interferences, resulting in a more appealing appearance of the temporary restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink