Volume 15, Issue 1 ( AUTUMN-WINTER 2019)
ijpd 2019, 15(1): 103-110 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mosharafian S, Afshar H, Kazemi S, Abazarian N. Comparison of the flexibility of two different stainless steel crowns (3M and MIB) while seating on primary molars. ijpd 2019; 15 (1) :103-110
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-264-en.html
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-264-en.html
Assistant Professor, Dentistry School of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2135 Views)
Background: One of the most important restorative methods in pediatric dentistry is the use of stainless steel crowns(ssc). Evaluation of the flexibility of existing crownsand whether the crowns that have more crimping ability are necessarily more flexible, was the basis of the present research.
Materials and methods: In this in vitro study, 13 extracted intact maxillary second molars were mounted 1 mm lower than the CEJ and the appropriate crown size was selected from the 3M and MIB brands. Preparation of the teeth for ssc was performed by a pediatric dentist. Sufficient seating and retention of the crowns were evaluated. The photographs of crown margins were taken by a digital camera and crown circumference measured with the Auto Cad software. Then, the ZWICK machine measured the force required to place each of the crowns on the tooth. Using the proportionality between the measured force and the circumference of the margin of each crown, the level of force equilibrated in each crown was obtained and compared.
Results: In 8 cases, the force applied to the crown and force to environment ratio in the case of 3M was higher than the MIB, and in 5 cases, 3M was less than the MIB. P-Value of difference of force to environment ratio, force difference and environmental difference between the two types of MIB and 3M crowns were calculated 0.113, 0.111 and 0.728, respectively, which were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: thecrowns that have more crimping ability are not necessarily more flexibleand the preparation is not different for the 3M and MIB crowns.
Materials and methods: In this in vitro study, 13 extracted intact maxillary second molars were mounted 1 mm lower than the CEJ and the appropriate crown size was selected from the 3M and MIB brands. Preparation of the teeth for ssc was performed by a pediatric dentist. Sufficient seating and retention of the crowns were evaluated. The photographs of crown margins were taken by a digital camera and crown circumference measured with the Auto Cad software. Then, the ZWICK machine measured the force required to place each of the crowns on the tooth. Using the proportionality between the measured force and the circumference of the margin of each crown, the level of force equilibrated in each crown was obtained and compared.
Results: In 8 cases, the force applied to the crown and force to environment ratio in the case of 3M was higher than the MIB, and in 5 cases, 3M was less than the MIB. P-Value of difference of force to environment ratio, force difference and environmental difference between the two types of MIB and 3M crowns were calculated 0.113, 0.111 and 0.728, respectively, which were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: thecrowns that have more crimping ability are not necessarily more flexibleand the preparation is not different for the 3M and MIB crowns.
Type of Article: Research Article |
Subject:
General
Received: 2019/12/27 | Accepted: 2019/12/27 | Published: 2019/12/27
Received: 2019/12/27 | Accepted: 2019/12/27 | Published: 2019/12/27
References
1. Holen G, Fuks A, Keltz N. Success rate of formocresolpulpotomy in primary molars restored with SSC vsamalgam.Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 212-216.
2. Humphery WP. Uses of chrome steel in children's dentistry.DentSurv 1950; 26 : 945-949.
3. Pinkham JR, Fields HW , McTigue DJ, Casamassino PS, Nowak a. Pediatric Dentistry : Infancy throuth Adolescence.3rd ed. Philadelphia. W.B. Saunders Company. 1999; chapter 21.
4. McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the child and Adolescent. 7th ed.Boston.Mosby;1999. Chapter 18.
5. Croll TP,Epstein DW, Castaldi CR. Marginal adaption of stainless steel crowns.Pediatr Dent 2003:25(3):249-252.
6. Afshar H, Sabeti AK, Shahrabi M. Comparison of primary molar crown dimensions with stainless steelcrowns in a sample of Iranian children.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2015 Spring; 9(2): 86-91. [DOI:10.15171/joddd.2014.017] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Reisi Gojani B. Comparison of occlusogingival height and wear resistance of three types of crowns: 3M, MIB and DNTO. Dissertation on the Dentistry. School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Thesis number: 6141. 2016. Available in Persian from: http://lib.tums.ac.ir/faces/search/fulltext/fulltextFullView.jspx?_afPfm=eo24cfcwt
8. Hemmati Z. Evaluation of the cervical environment of stainless steel crowns in different numbers in first and second primary molars and permanent first molars. Dissertation on the Dentistry. School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. thesis number:4855. 2001. Available in Persian from: http://lib.tums.ac.ir/faces/search/fulltext/fulltextFullView.jspx?_afPfm=eo24cfcwl
9. Afshar H, Ghandehari M, Soleimani B. Comparison of Marginal Circumference of Two Different Pre-Crimped Stainless Steel Crowns for Primary Molars After Re-Crimping. JDent (Tehran). 2015 Dec;12(12):926-31.
10. Mata AF, BabermeyerRD.Stainless steel crowns versus amalgams in the primary dentition and decision-making in clinical practice. Gen Dent 2006 Sep-Oct:54(5):347-350.
11. Mathewson. Fundamentals of pediatric dentistry.2nd Ed. London: Collin 1995; Chap 16:233-244
12. Spedding RH. Two principles for improving the adaptation of stainless steel crown primary molar s.DentClin North AM 1984; 28(1) :157-174.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
