IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Clinically Used Adhesive Ceramic Bonding Methods Over 12 Years
Objectives: This survey evaluated dentists’ use of adhesive bonding methods of all-ceramic restorations over a period of twelve years.
Methods: A anonymous questionnaire regarding adhesive bonding methods for all-ceramic restoration was developed and was handed out to dentist participating in a local annual dental meeting in Northern Germany. Restorations were distinguished by the type of ceramic. The questionnaire contained six multiple-choice questions with the option of comments from the participants to specify their individual techniques. The returned questionnaires were analyzed to determine whether the bonding methods were based on the current evidence-based technique from the scientific dental literature. The survey was conducted in 2007 and in 2019. Their results were compared. In addition to the multiple-choice questions, the gender, number of years of working experience and participation in one of the previous surveys was recorded.
Results: Data from 93 questionnaires in 2019 were compared with 90 evaluated questionnaires from 2007. For silicate ceramic restorations, the number of participants using evidence-based bonding procedures decreased from 69% to 38%; most of the incorrect bonding methods were using air abrasion on silicate surface. For oxide ceramic bonding, most participants did not use air-abrasion prior to bonding. But the rate of dentists using evidence-based dental techniques for bonding oxide ceramics had improved over the years of observation (7% to 62%). Females showed better values for correct adhesive cementation than males (f: 39-50%, m: 22-41%). A correlation between correct cementation and years of professional experience could not be found.
Conclusions: Incorrect bonding of oxide ceramic restorations decreased within the 12 years investigated whereas the values of evidence-based bonding procedures of silicate ceramics did not indicate any improvement. These results show that still a high number of survey participants need additional training in bonding techniques.
Methods: A anonymous questionnaire regarding adhesive bonding methods for all-ceramic restoration was developed and was handed out to dentist participating in a local annual dental meeting in Northern Germany. Restorations were distinguished by the type of ceramic. The questionnaire contained six multiple-choice questions with the option of comments from the participants to specify their individual techniques. The returned questionnaires were analyzed to determine whether the bonding methods were based on the current evidence-based technique from the scientific dental literature. The survey was conducted in 2007 and in 2019. Their results were compared. In addition to the multiple-choice questions, the gender, number of years of working experience and participation in one of the previous surveys was recorded.
Results: Data from 93 questionnaires in 2019 were compared with 90 evaluated questionnaires from 2007. For silicate ceramic restorations, the number of participants using evidence-based bonding procedures decreased from 69% to 38%; most of the incorrect bonding methods were using air abrasion on silicate surface. For oxide ceramic bonding, most participants did not use air-abrasion prior to bonding. But the rate of dentists using evidence-based dental techniques for bonding oxide ceramics had improved over the years of observation (7% to 62%). Females showed better values for correct adhesive cementation than males (f: 39-50%, m: 22-41%). A correlation between correct cementation and years of professional experience could not be found.
Conclusions: Incorrect bonding of oxide ceramic restorations decreased within the 12 years investigated whereas the values of evidence-based bonding procedures of silicate ceramics did not indicate any improvement. These results show that still a high number of survey participants need additional training in bonding techniques.
