THE DENTAL ADVISORwww.dentaladvisor.com

RATINGS:

ExcellentVery GoodGood

+ + + + + + + + ++ + +

THE DENTAL ADVISOR 3110 West Liberty, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 (800) 347-1330 info@dentaladvisor.com © 2012 Dental Consultants, Inc.#DADV09

PANAVIA SA CEMENT Two-year Clinical Performance Report

Kuraray America(800) 879-1676www.kuraraydental.com

Description PANAVIA SA CEMENT is a self-adhesive, dual-cured resin cement with fl uoride release. It is based on the PANAVIA and CLEARFIL SE BOND adhesive technology and has a reported fi lm thickness of approximately 20 microns. It is indicated for cementation of crowns and bridges made of metal or ceramic, inlays/onlays, and metal and fi ber posts. It is packaged in handmix and automix syringes in Universal (A2) and White shades.

CLEARFIL CERAMIC PRIMER is a single-bottle, silane/acidic adhesive monomer (MDP)-based coupling agent for use with indirect porcelain, ceramic, and composite restorations. It may also be used for intraoral porcelain or composite repairs. CLEARFIL CERAMIC PRIMER bonds to feldspathic porcelain, zirconia, alumina, lithium disilicate, and leucite-reinforced ceramics. No hydrofl uoric acid etching is necessary for ceramics before using this product. Instructions recommend a single coat followed by air-drying. Th is product combination received a 98% clinical rating.

Clinical Evaluation Protocol • A total of 274 restorations were cemented with PANAVIA SA

CEMENT. Restorations included: 145 zirconia-based restorations, 121 lithium disilicate restorations, six leucite-reinforced restorations, and two ceramic-metal restorations. Restorations were placed on 236 posterior and 38 anterior teeth. - CLEARFIL CERAMIC PRIMER was applied to the internal surface of the lithium disilicate and leucite-reinforced restorations.- Zirconia restorations were not primed.

LONG-TERM CLINICAL PERFORMANCE

Consultants’ Comments

Patient’s Comment

"Very little marginal discoloration was exhibited during the two years, indicating a strong bond strength"

"Applying the ceramic primer during placement was easy and it appears to have enhanced the bond of the cement to the restoration.”

“In most cases, debonds resulted in all residual cement on the internal surface of the crown.”

"My crown feels great."

"My crown looks as good today as the day it was cemented."

"My bridge chipped but the cement was so strong, it did not come off and the dentist only had to smooth the rough area."

Results at Placement

Handling of cement and ease of clean up of excess

Fit of restoration Shade match/esthetics Marginal integrity Initial sensitivity

PANAVIA SA CEMENT received

an excellent rating for ease

of removal of excess after

placement.

All restorations cemented

with PANAVIA SA CEMENT

had excellent marginal fi t. The

contacts and occlusion were

ideal before cementation.

The optimal esthetics of the

restorations was maintained

after cementing the

restorations with PANAVIA SA CEMENT.

The viscosity of the cement

allowed passive cementation

of the restorations resulting

in preservation of the ideal

marginal fi t of the restorations.

The majority of the teeth

exhibited no sensitivity

after cementation of the

restorations.

© 2012 Dental Consultants, Inc. THE DENTAL ADVISOR 3110 West Liberty, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 (800) 347-1330 info@dentaladvisor.com

LONG-TERM CLINICAL PERFORMANCE PANAVIA SA CEMENT Two-year Clinical Performance Report + + + + +

Clinical ObservationsRetentionRetention at two years was excellent (Figure 3). Ten posterior crowns (3.9%) debonded during service between four months and 2.5 years and required recementation.

EstheticsEsthetics at two years was excellent (Figure 3). Th e shade of PANAVIA SA CEMENT blended well with the restoration at placement. No shade shift was noted.

Resistance to Marginal StainingResistance to marginal staining at two years was excellent (Figure 3). Th ree restorations exhibited marginal staining at two years. One restoration had to be remade due to poor marginal fi t.

Lack of SensitivityVery few patients reported sensitivity (Figure 3). A small number of patients experienced mild sensitivity lasting 2-4 weeks. Five restorations caused mild-moderate sensitivity and two crowns had to be removed as a result of prolonged signifi cant sensitivity.

Resistance to Fracture/ChippingResistance to chipping and fracture at two years was excellent (Figure 3). Two crowns and one bridge had to be replaced as a result of fracture. Five crowns exhibited slight chipping that could be polished between one and two years.

SummaryTwo hundred fi fty-seven restorations, cemented with PANAVIA SA CEMENT, were observed at two years. All restorations received excellent ratings for esthetics, resistance to marginal staining, lack of sensitivity, resistance to fracture/chipping, and retention.

• A total of 257 restorations, cemented with PANAVIA SA CEMENT, were available for evaluation of clinical performance up to two years after placement. Restorations included: 133 zirconia-based restorations, 116 lithium disilicate restorations, six leucite-reinforced restorations, and two ceramic-metal restorations (Figure 1). Restorations observed at recall ranged in age from less than six months to nearly three years (Figure 2).

• Restorations were evaluated on a 1 – 5 rating scale: 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent.

Editors’ Note

PANAVIA SA CEMENT was initially branded as CLEARFIL SA CEMENT.

FIGURE 3: Results of PANAVIA SA CEMENT at Two-year Recall

Retention Esthetics Resistance to Marginal

Staining

Lack of Sensitivity

Resistance to Fracture/

Chipping

5

4

3

2

1

5 5 5 4.9 4.9

<0.5 Years

0.5-1.5 Years

1.5-2.5 Years

2.5-3.0 Years

FIGURE 2: Age of Restorations at Recall.

34%

17%5%

44%

Zirconia-based Restorations

Lithium disilicate Restorations

Leucite-Reinforced Restorations

Ceramic-metal Restorations

FIGURE 1: Types of Restorations Evaluated at Recall.

133

116

62