Materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics.

W. P. Naylor, M. W. Beatty

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

If we have learned anything from our experiences with all-ceramic systems such as Cerestore, Cerapearl, and even Dicor, it is that it takes years to uncover the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of new materials and technologies. Manufacturers' initial claims for fit, strength, esthetics, biocompatibility, wear characteristics, and clinical performance should be viewed as preliminary until supported by independent laboratory and clinical studies. Laboratory testing alone may not provide sufficient insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of products or assure comparable performance in the commercial dental laboratory or the ultimate testing arena, the oral environment. Moreover, the diversity of the new materials and techniques discussed demonstrates the breadth and depth of the technologic changes in dental biomaterials. The rate at which these dental products enter the marketplace and their sheer number alone are indeed staggering. Furthermore, these advances are not emerging from any single nation but from manufacturers all around the world (Japan, Germany, as well as the United States), indicating our international reliance on one another. Clearly, the decade of the 1990s is emerging as an exciting period in the development of biomaterials in comprehensive fixed prosthodontics and dentistry in general.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)665-692
Number of pages28
JournalDental clinics of North America
Volume36
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 1 1992

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this