Knowledge, Awareness and Perception of Cention Being Used as a Replacement for Amalgam Restoration
Article Sidebar
-
Cention, Amalgam, posterior restorations, restoration, materials
Abstract
Cention N, a newer replacement for amalgam used in posterior restoration, has been proven to provide superior aesthetics and better retention in comparison to Amalgam. The study was carried among 150 Undergraduate, Postgraduate Students and staff in Saveetha Dental College. Each student and staff were asked to independently fill the survey, which consisted of questions related to Cention N being used as a replacement to Amalgam in posterior restorations. This study mainly gave us an idea of the extent of how many dental students and dental practitioners know about Cention N and it's a progressive increase from dental practitioners to postgraduates when compared to the final years. This can be accredited to increased awareness, knowledge and training into clinical practice and in-depth knowledge into various recent advancements in restorative material. Thought most of the students and staff seemed to be aware of Cention N, very few had used it in the clinical setup for treatment.
Full text article
References
Abuelenain, D., Neel, E.A., Aldharrab, A. 2015. Surface and Mechanical Properties of Different Dental Composites. Austin Journal of Dentistry, 2(2):1019–1021.
Almuhaiza 2016. Glass-ionomer Cements in Restorative Dentistry: A Critical Appraisal. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 17(4):331–336.
Azeem, R.A., Sureshbabu, N.M. 2018. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review. Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 21:2–9.
Azillah, M.A., Anstice, H.M., Pearson, G.J. 1998. Long-term flexural strength of three direct aesthetic restorative materials. Journal of Dentistry, 26(2):89–98.
CentionN, Ivoclar Vivadent AG. 2016, Research & Development Scientific Service. N Ivoclar Vivadent AG Research & Development Scientific Service, pages 0–58.
Chole, D., Shah, H., Kundoor, S., Bakle, S., Gandhi, N., Hatte, N. 2018. Vitro Comparision of Flexural Strength of Cention-N, Bulk-Fill Composites, Light-Cure Nanocomposites, And Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement". IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN, 17(10):79– 82.
Didem, A., Gözde, Y., Nurhan, Ö. 2014. Comparative Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resins. Open Journal of Composite Materials, (02):117–121.
El-Nawawy, M., Koraitim, L., Abouelatta, O., Hegazi, H. 2013. Depth of Cure and Microhardness of Nano filled, Packable and Hybrid Dental Composite Resins. American Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 2(6):241–250.
Ferracane, J.L. 2006. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dental Materials, 22(3):211–222.
Fujishima, A., Ferracane, J.L. 1996. Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dental Materials, 12(1):38–43.
García-Contreras, R., Scougall-Vilchis, R., Acosta- Torres, L., Arenas-Arrocena, C., García-Garduño, R., Fuente-Hernández, J.D.L. 2015. Vickers micro-hardness comparison of 4 composite resins with different types of filler. Journal Oral of Research, 4(5):313–320.
Ilie, N., Hickel, R. 2011. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDRTM technology. Dental Materials, 27(4):348–355.
Kent, B.E., Lewis, B.G., Wilson, A.D. 1973. The properties of a glass ionomer cement. British Dental Journal, 135(7):322–326.
Khoroushi, M., Keshani, F. 2013. A review of glass-ionomers: From conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dental Research Journal, 10(4):411–420.
Lazarchik, D.A., Hammond, B.D., Sikes, C.L., Looney, S.W., Rueggeberg, F.A. 2007. Hardness comparison of bulk-filled/transtooth and incremental-filled/occlusally irradiated composite resins. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 98(2):60046–60054.
Mazumdar, P., Das, A., Guha, C. 2018. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative gic, cention n, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam) - an in vitro study. International Journal of Advanced Research, 6(3):826–832.
Menon, G., Kaarthikeyan, G., Raj, J. 2016. Recent advancement in restorative composite materials. International Journal of Recent Advances in Multi- disciplinary Research, (06):3–3.
Monteiro, G.Q.D.M., Montes, M.A.J.R. 2010. Evaluation of Linear polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of dental composites. Materials Research, 13(1):51–55.
Rodrigues-Junior, S., Ferracane, J., Bona, A. 2008. Flexural strength and Weibull analysis of a micro-hybrid and a nanofiller composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending tests. Dental Materials: Official Publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 24(3):426–431.
Sabatini, C. 2013. Comparative study of surface microhardness of methacrylate-based composite resins polymerized with light-emitting diodes and halogen. European Journal of Dentistry, 7(3).
Sadananda, V., Bhat, G., Hegde, M. 2017. Comparative Evaluation of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bulk-Fill Composites. International journal of advanced scientific and technical research, 1(7):122–131.
Shenoy, A. 2008. Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 11(3):99–99.
Üçtaşli, M.B., Bala, O., Güllü, A. 2004. The surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 31(12):1197– 1202.
Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.