Comparison of conventional dual resinous cement and self-adhesive resinous dual cement in endocrown

Abstract

Introduction: Endocrown-type restorations emerged as an alternative to rehabilitate endodontic posterior teeth, in order to avoid the use of intraradicular retainers. Thus, the conventional endocrown consists of a monobloc structure that takes the walls present in the pulp chamber and the dental structure present as retention. Objective: compare the type of cement that has the best properties when performing an endocrown according to the bibliographies published in the last 10 years. Method: a bibliographic review of the subject "comparison of conventional dual cement and self-adhesive dual cement in endocrown" was carried out, according to the evidence found. For this, databases such as: PubMed, Scielo, Elsevier were investigated, an Internet search was also carried out in the Google Scholar search engine. Development: resin cement is used in various fields of dentistry, such as, for example, within orthodontics, since it provides mechanical retention; in the field of endodontics, it is very useful for cementing fiberglass posts , since an effective bonding agent is needed, in the same way, in fixed prostheses, for the cementation of restorations of the Onlay, Inlay, Overlay type, therefore, regardless of the restoration, the application of a cement that is compatible with both chemical as aesthetically it is fruitful for adhesion. Conclusions: there are no significant differences between conventional dual resin cements and self-adhesive dual resin cements when it comes to marginal sealing, since it does not generate a perfect seal at the dentin-enamel interface present in Endocrown.