Presentation Category
Literature Review
Introduction/Context/Diagnosis
Indirect restorations, such as inlays, onlays, crowns, and bridges, require a reliable cementation method to ensure long-term success. Aim of this literature is to compare various cementation options that are available, advantages and disadvantages of different materials using conventional cementation or adhesive cementation .Also this discusses the rationale in selecting the choice and techniques in different clinical situations. In conclusion, both traditional and resin cements have their advantages and disadvantages for indirect restoration cementation. The choice of cement type depends on the clinical situation and the preferences of the clinician. Traditional cements may be preferred in situations where high bond strength is not required or where a dry environment can be maintained, while resin cements may be preferred when superior bonding is desired or when the restoration material is not compatible with traditional cements. Ultimately, proper technique and selection of the appropriate cement are essential for ensuring long-term success of indirect restorations
Significance/Conclusions
Delivery of an indirect restoration involves selection of a material to seal and hold the restoration in place for the time required for service. Many factors besides the luting agent (preparation height, taper, oral hygiene, habits, etc.) determine a restoration’s longevity but none come into play as quickly as the physical qualities (strength, adhesion, solubility, etc.) of the luting agent. A few materials discussed above fulfil most of the basic requirements of either a definitive or provisional luting agent yet each has unique shortcomings that may prevent their universal usage. The busy general practitioner need not (and cannot) know every minute detail of all the materials discussed above but must have sufficient knowledge to help choose an appropriate luting agent for each unique clinical situation.
Format
Event
Traditional Vs Resin Cements for Indirect Restorations
Indirect restorations, such as inlays, onlays, crowns, and bridges, require a reliable cementation method to ensure long-term success. Aim of this literature is to compare various cementation options that are available, advantages and disadvantages of different materials using conventional cementation or adhesive cementation .Also this discusses the rationale in selecting the choice and techniques in different clinical situations. In conclusion, both traditional and resin cements have their advantages and disadvantages for indirect restoration cementation. The choice of cement type depends on the clinical situation and the preferences of the clinician. Traditional cements may be preferred in situations where high bond strength is not required or where a dry environment can be maintained, while resin cements may be preferred when superior bonding is desired or when the restoration material is not compatible with traditional cements. Ultimately, proper technique and selection of the appropriate cement are essential for ensuring long-term success of indirect restorations
