Factors Influencing the Selection of Materials and Luting Agents for Single-Crown Restorations
<b>Objective:</b> Selecting suitable materials and luting agents for single crowns is critical yet challenging, as dentists must consider different factors. This study aimed to assess dentists’ preferences for materials and luting agents under different clinical conditions and evaluate t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Dentistry Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/13/5/207 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | <b>Objective:</b> Selecting suitable materials and luting agents for single crowns is critical yet challenging, as dentists must consider different factors. This study aimed to assess dentists’ preferences for materials and luting agents under different clinical conditions and evaluate the nonclinical factors influencing their preferences. <b>Methods:</b> A paper-based survey supplemented with photographs illustrating anterior and posterior single-crown preparation designs was used, incorporating three clinical scenarios for each as examples. Participants provided demographic data and were asked to select their preferred material and luting agent for each scenario. Comparisons between the crown material/luting agent choices and dentist/practice characteristics were performed. Significant differences were determined using the chi-square test. <b>Results:</b> Overall, 262 (87.3%) dentists participated in this survey. The top-selected material for anterior preparation designs was lithium disilicate; monolithic zirconia was the most selected for posterior preparation designs. Dual-cure resin was the most selected luting agent for all anterior and posterior clinical scenarios, except for posterior subgingival preparation design. There was a significant association between the dentist’s age and the selection of material and luting agent (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in all clinical scenarios, except for the luting agent selection in the posterior subgingival preparation designs (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Other nonclinical factors yielded mixed results; some preparation designs showed significant differences, while others did not, depending on the clinical scenario. <b>Conclusions:</b> Reliance on new materials and luting agents that require minimally invasive treatment with dental ceramics and resin cement is increasing. However, the choice of materials and luting agents is influenced by clinical presentation and nonclinical factors, making it crucial for dentists to be aware of these factors when selecting materials for single-crown restorations. <b>Clinical Implications:</b> An overall trend was observed for the use of strong monolithic ceramics with adhesive resin cements. These findings could assist dentists in reviewing and re-evaluating material choices in their clinical practices, both at a national and regional level. Additionally, the findings could be useful for dental policy makers, wholesale suppliers, and retail distributors in making future decisions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2304-6767 |