Alsahli Ahmad, Baig Mirza Rustum, Baskaradoss Jagan Kumar, Alsanea Shoug, AlMousawi Athoub
Department of General Dental Practice, College of Dentistry, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24923, Safat, Kuwait City 13110, Kuwait.
Discipline of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Sciences, College of Dentistry, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24923, Safat, Kuwait City 13110, Kuwait.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 May 9;13(5):207. doi: 10.3390/dj13050207.
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. 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. 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 ( < 0.05) in all clinical scenarios, except for the luting agent selection in the posterior subgingival preparation designs ( < 0.05). Other nonclinical factors yielded mixed results; some preparation designs showed significant differences, while others did not, depending on the clinical scenario. 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. 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.
为单冠选择合适的材料和粘结剂至关重要但也具有挑战性，因为牙医必须考虑不同因素。本研究旨在评估牙医在不同临床条件下对材料和粘结剂的偏好，并评估影响其偏好的非临床因素。使用了一份纸质调查问卷，并辅以说明前牙和后牙单冠预备设计的照片，每种情况都包含三个临床场景作为示例。参与者提供了人口统计学数据，并被要求为每个场景选择他们偏好的材料和粘结剂。对牙冠材料/粘结剂选择与牙医/诊所特征之间进行了比较。使用卡方检验确定显著差异。总体而言，262名（87.3%）牙医参与了这项调查。前牙预备设计中最常选择的材料是二硅酸锂；后牙预备设计中最常选择的是整体式氧化锆。除了后牙龈下预备设计外，双固化树脂是所有前牙和后牙临床场景中最常选择的粘结剂。在所有临床场景中，除了后牙龈下预备设计中的粘结剂选择（P<0.05）外，牙医的年龄与材料和粘结剂的选择之间存在显著关联（P<0.05）。其他非临床因素产生了混合结果；一些预备设计显示出显著差异，而其他的则没有，这取决于临床场景。对需要使用牙科陶瓷和树脂粘结剂进行微创治疗的新材料和粘结剂的依赖正在增加。然而，材料和粘结剂的选择受临床表现和非临床因素影响，这使得牙医在为单冠修复选择材料时了解这些因素至关重要。观察到使用坚固的整体式陶瓷与粘结性树脂粘结剂的总体趋势。这些发现有助于牙医在国家和地区层面的临床实践中审查和重新评估材料选择。此外，这些发现对于牙科政策制定者、批发供应商和零售经销商做出未来决策可能是有用的。
