|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 81-84
A survey among dentists in India to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns depending on the location of the abutment teeth and the preparation margin
Arun Kumar Talkal1, Neha Vijaykumar1, Mahesh C Swamy1, SN Shashank2, HG Harshitha Patil1, Shruthi Mavinahalli Shanmukappa1
1 Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
|Date of Submission||06-Dec-2022|
|Date of Acceptance||11-Dec-2022|
|Date of Web Publication||30-Dec-2022|
Dr. Arun Kumar Talkal
House. no F- 6, Staff Quarters, B BLOCK, Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Holehonnur Road, Shivamogga, Karnataka
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: There is a growing and more diverse selection of dental materials on the market, which presents a challenge for dentists who specialize in restorative and prosthetic treatment. Objectives: This survey investigated dentists’ preferences for materials used in the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns (SCs), taking into account the location of the abutment teeth and the width of the preparation margin. Materials and Methods: The survey aimed to learn more than just basic information about dentists and their practices; it also inquired about the dentists’ go-to materials for making crowns and bridges on abutment teeth, and whether or not those teeth were prepared supra- or subgingivally. Results: A total of 500 dental experts from Karnataka were included in the overview. Dental professionals who did not practice in Karnataka or who delivered less than one fixed dental prosthesis per month were not included in the evaluation. Regardless of the projection tooth and planning edge area, dental practitioners favored heated materials. In terms of materials for SCs without projection tooth areas and supragingival arrangement edges, clay was preferred by the majority of participating dental professionals (75%), followed by porcelain fused to metal (PFMs) (20%) and metal (5%). For each of the four projection teeth, dental specialists most frequently chose lithium-X-silicate ceramics (60%) followed by layered zirconia in the front region and solid zirconia for the molars. 85% of dental specialists who expressed interest in materials for SCs with subgingival planning edges favored pottery, whereas 15% preferred PFM. Conclusion: The clinical situation guides the selection of SC restorative materials by Indian dentists. Several dentists mentioned ceramic materials as their preferred materials for tooth-supported SCs.
Keywords: Ceramic, Composite resins, Dental alloys, Dental material, Dental restoration, Dentists
|How to cite this article:|
Talkal AK, Vijaykumar N, Swamy MC, Shashank S N, Harshitha Patil H G, Shanmukappa SM. A survey among dentists in India to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns depending on the location of the abutment teeth and the preparation margin. Int J Oral Care Res 2022;10:81-4
|How to cite this URL:|
Talkal AK, Vijaykumar N, Swamy MC, Shashank S N, Harshitha Patil H G, Shanmukappa SM. A survey among dentists in India to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns depending on the location of the abutment teeth and the preparation margin. Int J Oral Care Res [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 5];10:81-4. Available from: https://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2022/10/4/81/366318
| Introduction|| |
The preferred method of therapy for posterior dentition continues to be fixed prosthetic reclamations composed of compounds. While porcelain fused to metal (PFM) veneering, which may be used to partially or completely cover amalgam reclamations, may help to improve their aesthetically pleasant look, it commonly has drawbacks like dull shining or difficulties like façade chipping., A smart design approach, proper luting techniques, and a wide range of mechanical attributes that affect the sign range are among the beneficial materials that are now accessible. To assist dental professionals offering rehabilitative and prosthetic care, a significant and constantly expanding assortment of dental products is made accessible. It has been possible for a very long time to combine precious and base metals. Prosthetic reconstruction attempts did not fully capture clear but important components, including the kind of materials or the particular clinical setting (i.e., minor planning configuration). The preferred materials utilized by Indian dental specialists to make tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) cannot, therefore, be inferred in any meaningful way from the information provided.,,,,, It is unclear whether these preferences result from the unique characteristics of the dentist, the dental clinic, or the individual patient. The purpose of this research was to learn which materials dentists in Karnataka, India, prefer for making tooth-supported SCs depending on where the projection teeth and planning edge are located. The hypothesis under consideration was that dentists in Karnataka would all recommend the same set of materials for making SCs, regardless of the specifics of each patient’s case, the dentist’s personality, or the dentist’s chosen profession.
| Materials and Methods|| |
The study’s survey was based on a prior publication. It was planned to collect information in one section of the survey about the demographics of the dentists who took part, including their age, gender, research focus, and number of years since earning their dental degree. All procedures performed in the study were conducted in accordance with the ethics standards given in 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013. The study proposal was submitted for approval and clearance was obtained from the ethical committee of our institution. A written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Dental students and practitioners were polled on a variety of topics, including the first digit of their zip code and the population of the municipality housing their dental school or practice. Also requested were samples of the members’ monthly donations, such as a single or a number of fixed dental prosthesis. The survey gave a depiction of the single planning edge (supra- or subgingival) as well as four expected regions of projection teeth with reference to the inclination of the materials utilized to create SCs, including teeth (as indicated by the FDI) 16, 11, 34, and 36 (A) (B). An individual investigation was conducted for each combination of tooth and cutting edge, resulting in a total of eight questions that were arranged as follows: For a highly robust tooth-supported SC that is affixed to a projection tooth (A) and has a readiness edge (B), what sort of material do you normally advise? The options available to dental practitioners who took part include entire metal, PFM, heated, and computer-aided design/CAM gum composite. It was also feasible to express oneself openly. The evaluation addressed several points of view about cementation, the intraoral fix for chipping, and the selection of material for a multi-unit fixed dental prosthesis in addition to queries that were especially targeted at SCs. Data were made accessible for measurable investigation.
| Results|| |
The evaluation included 500 dental experts in total. The population was made up of 55% men and 45% women. The group’s members ranged in age from 40 to 60, with the bulk of them being under 40. For SCs with supragingival readiness edges, regardless of the projection tooth’s position, the majority of dentists (75%) recommended ceramic restorations, followed by PFM restorations (20%), and metal restorations (5%). In [Figure 1], Dental professionals most commonly choose lithium-X-silicate ceramics (60%), followed by layered zirconia in the anterior area and solid zirconia in the molars. Eighty-five percent of the dentists polled favored earthenware production as the best material for subgingival planning edges on surgical guides, whereas fifteen percent favored PFM [Figure 2]. Dentists who preferred ceramics often opted for either lithium-X-silicate or layered zirconia earthenware for front teeth, while solid zirconia was the material of choice for posterior teeth. Advantage in dental treatment preparation, material choice, and practitioner traits According to the study’s findings, the length of time post-graduation had a significant role in determining the materials used to create a SC for tooth 11 that included a subgingival readiness edge. On average, dental specialists who received their degrees within the previous 15 years would anticipate fewer SCs from PFM than specialists who received their degrees in the past. No quantitatively significant variations in material preference were found in group analyses that were arranged according to the population of the town or city where the dental office or college was located. Dental practitioners more typically select PFMs for situations involving subgingival arrangement edges when compared to the material utilized for supragingival configurations (all P = 0.001).
|Figure 1: Dentist’s choice of materials for fabrication of a single crown for tooth with a supragingival preparation margin|
Click here to view
|Figure 2: Dentist’s choice of materials for fabrication of a single crown for tooth with a subgingival preparation margin|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
According to the study, dental professionals in Karnataka favor employing inventive materials to make SCs without the projection tooth and readiness edge. A few of the members leaned full metal or PFM. Although SCs were presented all of the poll’s materials in the appropriate projection tooth or readiness edge, these results also demonstrate that, in extremely complicated circumstances, current trends are given less weight than clear handling and demonstration. Although there is currently a lack of information on the effects on the masticatory system and the length of exhibition and endurance, the findings of the current research suggest that utilizing solid zirconia is frequently advised for molar reconstruction attempts. Unexpectedly, several of the participating dental practitioners chose not to react to the inquiries regarding pornographic pottery. However, some dental specialists offered a free response, such as the brand or the maker. The broad variety of tooth-shaded materials accessible on the dentistry market,,,,, may be the root of this outcome, which may imply misunderstanding over current orders. Whatever the case, dental specialists must be familiar with the different ways that pottery is made because this information is crucial when deciding on the best cementation technique or signs for the material. These materials require cautious handling in line with the maker’s recommendations due to their extremely intricate creation and manufacturing. The wide range of materials accessible in India may also result in flaws and confusion, highlighting the potential need for enhanced postgraduate education. One of the limitations of the study was the quantity of clinical situations provided to the participants. It may have been enjoyable to describe anticipated variations in supporting strategies for patients doing parafunctional activities, equigingival readiness edges, or lower incisors. It would have been interesting to show clinical situations with varying SC layer thicknesses, as this limitation would also affect the selection of tooth-colored materials. The results imply that dental professionals should rely their selection of beneficial materials on the specific clinical situations. Future advancements in postgraduate education and training may strengthen a person’s aptitude for recently released tooth-colored materials.
| Conclusion|| |
Dentists in Karnataka determined which restorative materials were best for SCs based on each patient’s unique condition. Because many dentists did not mention ceramic materials, further study after dental school could assist expand competence. The survey’s findings shed light on the supplies dentists use to create tooth-supported SCs.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Rauch A, Schrock A, Schierz O, Hahnel S Material selection for tooth-supported single crowns-a survey among dentists in Germany. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:283-93.
Bennani V Fabrication of an indirect-direct provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:364-5.
Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs. Dent Mater 2015;31:624-39.
Stawarczyk B, Dinse L, Eichberger M, Jungbauer R, Liebermann A Flexural strength, fracture toughness, three-body wear, and Martens parameters of pressable lithium-X-silicate ceramics. Dent Mater2020;36:420-30.
Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC CAD/CAM ceramic restorative materials for natural teeth. J Dent Res 2018;97:1082-91.
Edelhoff D, Stimmelmayr M, Schweiger J, Ahlers MO, Güth JF Advances in materials and concepts in fixed prosthodontics: a selection of possible treatment modalities. Br Dent J 2019;226:739-48.
Williamson RT Using the existing prosthesis as a provisional restoration. J Am Dent Assoc1995;126:107-10.
Zimmermann M, Ender A, Egli G, Özcan M, Mehl A Fracture load of CAD/CAM-fabricated and 3D-printed composite crowns as a function of material thickness. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:2777-84.
Methani MM, Revilla-Leon M, Zandinejad A The potential of additive manufacturing technologies and their processing parameters for the fabrication of all-ceramic crowns: a review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32:182-92.
Gilbert GH, Gordan VV, Korelitz JJ, Fellows JL, Meyerowitz C, Oates TW, et al
; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:11.
Makhija SK, Lawson NC, Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, McClelland JA, Louis DR, et al
; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Dentist material selection for single-unit crowns: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Dent 2016;55:40-7.
McCauley JL, Nelson JD, Gilbert GH, Gordan V, Durand SH, Mungia R, et al
; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Prescription drug abuse among patients in rural dental practices reported by members of the national dental PBRN. J Rural Health 2019;36:145-51.
Raedel M, Hartmann A, Böhm S, Priess HW, Samietz S, Konstantinidis I, et al
. Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces-a massive data analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:2819-25.
Chudoba B How much time are respondents willing to spend on your survey? Accessed Access date 05/05/2020 BZÄK/KZBV (2020) Daten & fakten 2020 [Data & facts] (in India). 2020. https://www.bzaek.de/fileadmin/PDFs/df20/_Daten_Fakten_2020.pdf
. [Last accessed on 06 Jan 2021].
Sulaiman TA Materials in digital dentistry: A review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32:171-81.
Walton TR The up to 25-year survival and clinical performance of 2,340 high gold-based metal-ceramic single crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:151-60.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]