The wrong story on zinc oxide and eugenol:
Recently there have been instances whereas the clinician has been given misinformation as it relates to zinc oxide and eugenol. Specifically Gordon Christensen and more recently Frank Spears have stated that temporary restorations made of zinc oxide and eugenol will not interfere with the polymerization of composite resin restorations subsequently placed. Both sources stated that any residual eugenol associated with the temporary restoration would eventually dissipate.
This statement is not true. First, zinc oxide reacts with eugenol to form zinc eugenolate, which is a chelate compound. This compound crystallizes to give a matrix of long sheath-like crystals that bind together the remaining unreacted zinc oxide (Restorative Dental Materials, University of Michigan, CV Mosby Company). Unreacted eugenol is absorbed by both the zinc eugenolate and the unreacted zinc oxide. The hardened mass therefore consists of a mesh-like matrix of zinc eugenolate crystals binding together particle of zinc oxide and the excess eugenol absorbed by both the zinc eugenolate and zinc oxide.
The point is this: the excess eugenol remains in a free state (unreacted) and will remain in the material indefinitely. Unless all of the residual material is removed prior to placing the dentin-bonding agent, the polymerization process stands to be impeded.
Clinically there are a couple of ways that the problem can be prevented. One way would be to hybridize the preparation before the zinc oxide containing temporary material (IRM) is placed. Obviously, this may not always be a practical approach, depending upon the specific procedure being carried out. The other way to deal with the matter is to sand blast the preparation (Danville Microetcher) immediately after the zinc oxide and eugenol temporary has been removed. The final and third way is to use “no- eugenol based temporaries. Unfortunately most of the eugenol-free temporary agents do not have the same quality of handling as do those that contain eugenol.
Karl Leinfelder
3 responses so far ↓
1 Wbeller // Jan 20, 2006 at 4:41 pm
If you are not going to bond crown. only cement it with Fuji Plus, would this not be a good way to insulate against sensitivity? Just etch prime and bond over the oxylate crystals and cement the crown. We don’t need the retention but double layer of insulation would help in extreme sensitivity cases.
2 karl // Jan 26, 2006 at 2:20 am
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. Personally, I like the use of a glass ionomer to cement a full crown restoration. The fluoride release and associated effectiveness is an answer to the question of how to reduce the potential for secondary caries after years of clinical service. It is the property missing in zinc phosphate cement. It should also be of assistance in reducing the potential for postoperative sensitivity. Also, it possesses bonding properties. If there is sufficient passive resistance to crown release associated with the preparation, the bonding properties of the glass ionomer are sufficient.
And yes, once could etch and prime (hybridize) before the application of the glass ionomer luting agent. In fact I think that is a very good approach for a number of reasons, including reduction in the potential for microbial penetration into the dentinal tubules. The flouride release as well as the obliteration of the tubules through hybridizing is a great concept as it relates to long term clinical service..
I am not sure what you meant by bonding over the oxylate crystals. Could you provide me with an explanation so that I could respond to your comment?
Karl Leinfelder
3 Renee Church // Apr 6, 2007 at 3:55 am
Is dentine conditioner of use in the removal of temporary cement residue containing eugenol? Does the use of eugenol in temporary cement interfere with GIC luting agents subsequently used in crown placement?
You must log in to post a comment.