2003Journal of ProsthodonticsRequires access

Postcementation hypersensitivity: Scientific data versus dentists’ perceptions

Stephen Rosenstiel, Robert Rashid

Open publisher page 29 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to obtain dentists' opinions via an Internet survey as to the prevalence, causes, and prevention of postcementation sensitivity and compare their responses with published data on the problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information as to respondents opinions of postcementation sensitivity was obtained from an Internet survey asking about their experience and for a ranking of the importance of each of 15 factors. RESULTS: A total of 466 valid responses were received. The incidence of postcementation sensitivity was estimated to be less than 2% by more than 2/3 of the dentists. The factors considered "very important" in reducing sensitivity by more than 50% of the respondents were desiccation, luting agent, occlusion, provisional, and water spray. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing respondents' opinions with published clinical studies, the incidence of postcementation sensitivity appears to be underestimated. There is little published evidence to support the importance of antimicrobials, desensitizing, or bonding agents, although these are considered effective by some dentists. Many respondents consider luting agent to be an important variable.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to obtain dentists' opinions via an Internet survey as to the prevalence, causes, and prevention of postcementation sensitivity and compare their responses with published data on the problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information as to respondents opinions of postcementation sensitivity was obtained from an Internet survey asking about their experience and for a ranking of the importance of each of 15 factors. RESULTS: A total of 466 valid responses were received. The incidence of postcementation sensitivity was estimated to be less than 2% by more than 2/3 of the dentists. The factors considered "very important" in reducing sensitivity by more than 50% of the respondents were desiccation, luting agent, occlusion, provisional, and water spray. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing respondents' opinions with published clinical studies, the incidence of postcementation sensitivity appears to be underestimated. There is little published evidence to support the importance of antimicrobials, desensitizing, or bonding agents, although these are considered effective by some dentists. Many respondents consider luting agent to be an important variable.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 29 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to obtain dentists' opinions via an Internet survey as to the prevalence, causes, and prevention of postcementation sensitivity and compare their responses with published data on the problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information as to respondents opinions of postcementation sensitivity was obtained from an Internet survey asking about their experience and for a ranking of the importance of each of 15 factors. RESULTS: A total of 466 valid responses were received. The incidence of postcementation sensitivity was estimated to be less than 2% by more than 2/3 of the dentists. The factors considered "very important" in reducing sensitivity by more than 50% of the respondents were desiccation, luting agent, occlusion, provisional, and water spray. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing respondents' opinions with published clinical studies, the incidence of postcementation sensitivity appears to be underestimated. There is little published evidence to support the importance of antimicrobials, desensitizing, or bonding agents, although these are considered effective by some dentists. Many respondents consider luting agent to be an important variable.

Key concepts: Incidence (geometry), Medicine, The Internet, Ranking (information retrieval), Dentistry, Family medicine, Perception, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Postcementation hypersensitivity: Scientific data versus dentists’ perceptions — Research Paper | ScholarLens