• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.283-293
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dual bonding technique by comparing microshear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to tooth dentin. Three dentin bonding systems(All-Bond 2, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond), two temporary cements (Propac, Freegenol) were used in this study. In groups used conventional luting procedure, dentin surfaces were left untreated. In groups used dual bonding technique, three dentin bonding systems were applied to each dentin surface. All specimens were covered with each temporary cement. The temporary cements were removed and each group was treated using one of three different dentin bonding system. A resin cement was applied to the glass cylinder surface and the cylinder was bonded to the dentin surface. Then, micro-shear bond strength test was performed. For the evaluation of the morphology at the resin/dentin interface, SEM examination was also performed. 1. Conventional luting procedure showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than dual boning technique. However, there were no significant differences. 2. Freegenol showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than Propac, but there were no significant differences. 3. In groups used dual bonding technique, SE Bond showed significantly higher micro-shear bond strengths in One-Step and All-Bond 2 (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between One-Step and All-Bond 2. 4. In SEM observation, with the use of All-Bond 2 and One-Step, very long and numerous resin tags were observed. This study suggests that there were no findings that the dual bonding technique would be better than the conventional luting procedure.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.240-245
• /
• 2016

Removal of excess cement is important to prevent biological complication in cementation of implant restoration with subgingival margin. It can be difficult to completely remove excess cement. Several techniques have been introduced to minimize excess cement using abutment replica. In this case report, a simple method for making abutment replica with hot melt adhesive material in dental office was described. This technique is simple and effective because it can be used for pre-fabricated or custom abutment without additional laboratory procedure. In addition, it can minimize excess cement after cementation of implant restoration.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.458-467
• /
• 2016

Cement-retained implant prosthesis has several advantages in the esthetic and occlusal aspects. However, the difficulty of the retrievability and the possibility of peri-implantitis induced by the cement excess would be a threatening factor to the implant prognosis. Peri-implantitis resulting from the remaining cement could occur later on to the patients with periodontitis history. Retention can be controlled by selecting the right cement type. Retention of the cement was the strongest in the resin cement, followed by resin modified glass ionomer cement, poIycarboxylate cement, zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cement. Retention of the provisional cement weakened after thermocycling. Other factors such as the abutment number, abutment alignment, height and taper of the abutment can also affect the total retention. To the success of the cement-retained prosthesis, it's important to select the right cement for the clinical purpose. The prosthesis should be fabricated in accordance with the biomechanical requirements. The prosthesis should be cemented with the techniques to reduce the excess cement as much as possible. In addition, the excess cement should be identified using the radiography and carefully removed.