Część I. Rekonstrukcje tymczasowe

Część I. Rekonstrukcje tymczasowe

Dostęp do tego artykułu jest płatny.
Zapraszamy do zakupu!

Cena: 24.00 PLN (z VAT)

Po dokonaniu zakupu artykuł w postaci pliku PDF prześlemy bezpośrednio pod twój adres e-mail.

Kup artykuł
MS 2022; 4: 19-40.


Część I. Rekonstrukcje tymczasowe

Part I. Temporary reconstructions

Adam Romaniuk-Demonchaux

Streszczenie
Sposób rekonstrukcji zębów leczonych endodontycznie jest kluczowy dla uzyskania dobrych wyników leczenia. Jakość odbudowy, w tym szczególnie jej szczelność i wytrzymałość mechaniczna, jest niezmiernie istotna zarówno dla tymczasowych, jak i ostatecznych rekonstrukcji. Rekonstrukcje tymczasowe stanowią barierę przed wnikaniem bakterii, umożliwiają również uzyskanie właściwej izolacji z zastosowaniem koferdamu. Możliwa jest instrumentacja oraz irygacja systemu endodontycznego. Optymalnym, choć nie zawsze możliwym do przeprowadzenia protokołem klinicznym jest wykonanie rekonstrukcji bezpośrednio po wypełnieniu kanałów, przed zdjęciem koferdamu.

Abstract
The method of reconstruction of endodontically treated teeth is crucial for achieving good treatment results. The quality of the restoration, especially its tightness and mechanical strength, are extremely important for both temporary and fi nal restorations. Temporary reconstructions constitute a barrier against the penetration of bacteria, they also allow for tight isolation with the use of a rubber dam. Therefore, it is possible to properly instrumentalization and irrigate the endodontic system. The optimal, although not always feasible, clinical protocol is to perform a reconstruction immediately after fi lling the canals before removing the rubber dam.

Hasła indeksowe: ząb leczony endodontycznie, odbudowa tymczasowa

Key words: endodontically treated tooth, temporary restoration

PIŚMIENNICTWO

  1. Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS i wsp. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2011; 37(7): 895-902.
  2. Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment. Part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J. 2011; 44(7): 583-609.
  3. Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment. Part 2: tooth survival. Int Endod J. 2011; 44(7): 610-625.
  4. Heling I, Gorfil C, Slutzky H i wsp. Endodontic failure caused by inadequate restorative procedures. Review and treatment recommendations. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87(6): 674-678.
  5. Demarchi MG, Sato EF. Leakage of interim post and cores used during laboratory fabrication of custom posts. J Edod. 2002; 28(4): 328-329.
  6. Fransson H, Dawson VS, Frisk F i wsp. Survival of root-filled teeth in the Swedish adult population. J Endod. 2016; 42(2): 216-220.
  7. Gomes AC, Nejaim Y, Silva AI i wsp. Influence of endodontic treatment and coronal restoration on status of periapical tissues. A cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2015; 41(10): 1614-1618.
  8. Willershausen B, Tekyatan H, Krummenauer F i wsp. Survival rate of endodontically treated teeth in relation to conservative vs post insertion techniques – a retrospective study. Eur J Med Res. 2005; 10(5): 204-208.
  9. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ i wsp. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002; 18(6): 470-478.
  10. Abbott PV. Assessing restored teeth with pulp and periapical diseases for the presence of cracks, caries and marginal breakdown. Aust Dent J. 2004; 49(1): 33-39.
  11. Brännström M, Nyborg H. The presence of bacteria in cavities filled with silicate cement and composite resin materials. Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1971; 64(3):149-155.
  12. Brännström M, Johnson G. Effects of various conditioners and cleaning agents on prepared dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 31(4): 422-430.
  13. McDonald A, Setchell D. Developing a tooth restorability index. Dent Update. 2005; 32(6): 343-348.
  14. Krupiński J, Żarow M, Gończowski K i wsp. Laboratory evaluation of marginal seal of conventional and modified restorations. Stomatologia Współczesna. 1999; 6: 51-56.
  15. Hayashi J, Shimada Y, Tagami J i wsp.: Real-time imaging of gap progress during and after composite polymerization. J Dent Res. 2017; 96(9): 992-998.
  16. Ghavamnasiri M, Moosavi H, Tahvildarnejad N. Effect of centripetal and incremental methods in class II composite resin restorations on gingival microleakage. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007; 8(2): 113-120.
  17. Cagidiaco MC, Ferrari M, Vichi A i wsp. Mapping of tubule and intertubule surface areas available for bonding in class V and class II preparations. J Dent. 1997; 25(5): 379-389.
  18. Araujo Fde O, Vieira LC, Monteiro Junior S. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations. Oper Dent. 2006; 31(5): 556-561.
  19. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin. A brief history and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence Int. 1995; 26(2): 95-110.
  20. Ehrnford L, Dérand T. Cervical gap formation in class II composite resin restorations. Swed Dent J. 1984; 8(1): 15-19.
  21. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Joosten M i wsp. Porosities and voids in class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite. Dent Mater. 2002; 18(1): 58-63.
  22. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S i wsp. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. J Dent. 2014; 42(5): 619-625.
  23. Attar N, Turgut MD, Güngör HC. The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(2): 162-167.
  24. Moazzami SM, Sarabi N, Hajizadeh H i wsp. Efficacy of four lining materials in sandwich technique to reduce microleakage in class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2014; 39(3): 256-263.
  25. Li XR, Wang J, Li HW. [Clinical evaluation of flowable composites in treatment of wedge-shaped defects as a liner]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2011; 20(4): 429-432.
  26. Curtis PM Jr, von Fraunhofer JA, Farman AG. The radiographic density of composite restorative resins. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1990; 70(2): 226-230.
  27. Borouziniat A, Khaki H, Majidinia S. Retrospective evaluation of the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using the snow-plow technique. Up to 4 years follow-up. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(11): e964-e968.
  28. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, de Boer T i wsp. Voids and porosities in class I micropreparations filled with various resin composites. Oper Dent. 2003; 28(1): 9-14.
  29. Boruziniat A, Gharaee S, Sarraf Shirazi A i wsp. Evaluation of the efficacy of flowable composite as lining material on microleakage of composite resin restorations. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47(2): 93-101.
  30. Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111(2): 155-162.
  31. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM i wsp. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9(5): 469-475.
  32. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Composite restorations. Influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite linings on microleakage in vitro. Oper Dent. 2002; 27(6): 569-575.
  33. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD i wsp. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(6): 775-783.
  34. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F i wsp. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth. Findings from the New England children’s amalgam trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(6): 763-772.
  35. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS i wsp. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011; 27(10): 955-963.
  36. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA i wsp. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89(10): 1063-1067.
  37. Żuławnik A, Zielonka M, Obroniecka K i wsp. Wpływ procedury polimeryzacji na stopień szczelności brzeżnej wypełnień z materiałów złożonych – badania in vitro. Protet Stomatol. 2018; 68(3): 279-292.