The Effect of a Digital Manufacturing Technique, Preparation Taper, and Finish Line Design on the Marginal Fit of Temporary Molar Crowns: An In-Vitro Study.

The aim of this study is to investigate the combined effect of a digital manufacturing technique (subtractive vs. additive), preparation taper (10° vs. 20° TOC), and finish line (chamfer vs. shoulder) on the marginal adaptation of temporary crowns following cementation with a compatible temporary cement. Four mandibular first molar typodont teeth were prepared for full coverage crowns with standard 4 mm preparation height as follows: 10° TOC with the chamfer finish line, 10° TOC with the shoulder finish line, 20° TOC with the chamfer finish line and 20° TOC with the shoulder finish line. Each of the four preparation designs were subdivided into two subgroups to receive CAD/CAM milled and 3D-printed crowns (n = 10). A total of 80 temporary crowns (40 CAD/CAM milled and 40 3D-printed) were cemented to their respective die using clear temporary recement in the standard cementation technique. The samples were examined under a stereomicroscope at ×100 magnification following calibration. Linear measurements were performed at seven equidistant points on each axial surface and five equidistant points on each proximal surface. One-way ANOVA analysis and Tukey HSD (Honestly Significance Difference) were performed. The best marginal fit was seen in group 8, while the poorest fit was noted in group 2. Shoulder finish lines and 10° TOC resulted in higher marginal gaps, especially in CAD/CAM milled group. The selection of 3D-printed crowns may provide a better marginal fit within the range of clinical acceptability. Marginal gaps were within clinical acceptability (50 and 120 µm) in all groups except group 2.

Efficacy of Three Commercially Available Desensitizers in Reducing Post-Operative Sensitivity Following Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

One of the most widely used esthetic restorations in dentistry is composite. The widespread application of composites can be related to advancements in biomaterials. However, due to various factors, composites are commonly associated with dental sensitivity. Hence, the present study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of three desensitizing agents in reducing post-treatment sensitivity for Class I composite restoration. Eighty subjects with Class I cavities were selected according to the inclusion criteria, and a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was carried out. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to four groups: Group C (Control group), Group GL (Gluma group), Group SF (Shield Force Plus group), and Group TC (Telio CS group). The desensitizers were applied after Class 1 cavity preparation and acid etching in all the groups, except the Control group, and thereafter, composite restoration was completed in a conventional manner. Questionnaires were provided to all the participants to record the post-operative pain/sensitivity level according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) on intake of cold drinks, intake of hot drinks, and intake of sugar for different periods of time. Significant variation was observed between the three desensitizers for all three stimuli. However, no significant variations were seen with the various age groups and between the maxillary and the mandibular teeth at the different time periods. Group GL performed better than Group SF and Group TC. It can be proposed that the application of the desensitizers reduced the post-restorative sensitivity in the composite restorations and improved acceptance.