Email Printer Friendly
Christensen: Self-etch is better than total etch
By Kathy Kincade, Editor in Chief

February 26, 2009 -- CHICAGO - To self-etch or total etch, that is the question.

At least it is for many in the dental community -- but not Gordon Christensen, D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D.

"I don't understand what all the hassle is over this," he told a roomful of dentists at the Chicago Dental Society Midwinter Meeting Thursday during his talk, "Controversies in Restorative Dentistry."

"We've done a lot of testing, and if I have some extracted teeth and we put some self-etching primer on them, we will get optimum strength -- in vitro," he said.

And even though in vivo tests show total etch to be stronger, Dr. Christensen still prefers to run with the herd. "Self-etch is by far the most popular [bonding approach] in North America," he noted.

Why? Tooth sensitivity.

Dr. Christensen listed several characteristics of the "ideal adhesive," including thin film thickness, no marginal discoloration, ease of use, reasonable shelf-life stability, radiopacity, bond strength, and moderate cost. Topping his list, however, was that the adhesive "eliminates postoperative tooth sensitivity."

"Surveys have shown that total etch dramatically increases tooth sensitivity," he said. "A lot of manufacturers will emphasize bond strength, but my first question is, 'Does it hurt?' "

The problem, he said, is that it's hard not to use too much acid.

Resin, resin, resin

Not surprisingly, Dr. Christensen expressed definitive opinions about other restorative materials as well.

"Amalgam? I'm not using it at this point because I've heard too many concerns that it causes everything from pancreatic cancer to hemorrhoids," he said. Rather, he prefers resin-based composites.

"Resin restorations, properly prepared and placed, are now excellent, state-of-the-art procedures," he said. "Previous challenges such as sensitivity and wear can be overcome with selection of proper materials, use of acceptable primers and bonds, and use of sectional matrices."

When it comes to cements, he prefers resin-based glass ionomers, such as RelyX Luting Plus from 3M ESPE and GC FujiCEM Automix from GC America, to resin cements.

"This is not a controversy outside North America," Dr. Christensen noted. "A moderate-strength cement is what we would like, and the resin-based glass ionomers have good strength. Also, the resins do not have the fluoride the glass ionomers have."

He also questioned the current "fetish" over leakage and microleakage associated with both resins and ionomers.

"Even long-lasting restorations leak like a sieve!" he said. "And the mouth and body seem to handle this OK."

When it comes to posts, Dr. Christensen once again favors resin-based composites over metal. The most popular, he said, are resin-based composite fiber-reinforced posts -- particularly the newer clear models, such as the D.T. Light-Post from Bisco and the ParaPost Lux from Coltène Whaledent, that enable light to travel down into the channel after the post is embedded to begin curing the cement more quickly.

"Pure titanium in a post doesn't turn me on because it's too malleable. But in a pin, it does turn me on," he said.

Finally, Dr. Christensen shared his thoughts on digital imaging and CAD/CAM -- most of them favorable.

"I've been using digital radiography for nine years now and would never go back," he said. "In fact, I just got myself a cone-beam [CT]. I had to trade in two kids and a Mercedes to get it ... but this technology is coming, and the price will go down."

Dr. Christensen also sees office-based CAD/CAM as an inevitable wave of the future, in conjunction with zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations -- driven by increased patient demand for single-appointment indirect restorations. Zirconia frameworks are already rivaling PFM frameworks, he noted.

"With in-office CAD/CAM, your margins are as good as or better than a dental lab, and the materials are better," Dr. Christensen said. "Also, the time involvement is less, if you use your auxiliaries properly -- your assistant, hygienist, even a lab tech. But you have to like and want to use your staff."

Other advantages of in-office CAD/CAM include faster turnaround times, greater consistency and predictability, and potentially lower costs. "Five years from now, I think we'll all be using these," he concluded.

Copyright © 2009 DrBicuspid.com

Christensen 'embarrassed' by U.S. dentistry, October 28, 2008

Gordon Christensen on veneers , March 25, 2008

ADA Show Report: Gordon C on Perio D, October 12, 2007

ADA Show Report: When Gordon talks, dentists listen, October 4, 2007

ADA Show Report: Gordon Christensen: It's a great time to be a dentist, September 28, 2007


Last Updated hh 2/26/2009 4:29:03 PM

6 comments so far ...
3/4/2009 2:43:12 PM
Dental Magician
I agree with most everything with Dr. Christensen, who I uphold to the highest regard, but with respect to Dr. Christensen's preference for resin posts and self etching bonding, I disagree with him that those are both "better", but how do you define better?  Simpler clinical technique, superior long-term results, ease of placement, biocompatible, cost?  etc.  I have and use use both metal (stainless steel and titanium) posts in both threaded and parallel styles and resin-fiber posts, and I use total etch with 4th generation bonding, which in my opinion results in superior long term success.  As far as post op sensitivity is concerned, there is little to none, and I'm not exaggerating this subject as my patients commonly report no pain.  Also, I often etch for 30-40 seconds on enamel and about 20-30 on dentin.  I really don't believe that etching alone is the only cause for post op sensitivity (POS).  I can understnad that it can be the "main" cause if not done properly.  I can list more than a dozen reasons about what other factors contribute to POS other than the etch.  Properly done, total etch with 4th generation bonding with the "right and high quality" composite and 2 mm layering increments can last as long or even longer than amalgams.  I know that might raise some eyebrows, but in my experience, it's true.   As far as metal vs resin posts is concerned, I have not encountered any drawbacks to metal posts except it's grey color.  Properly done, it is also as good or better than resin posts.  And it's more economical as well.  The best criteria for judging what is better are low or no failures and long term clinical success (both in-vivo of course), and these two points I've stated are superior, provided they are properly done.
3/4/2009 4:39:39 PM
Brucesown
The fact that you have heard that amalgam causes everything from pancreatic cancer to hemorrhoids hardly constitutes a reasonable argument. It is dying its own slow death as composites improve, but there is the occasional time when amalgam is the perfect material. For that alone it is worth keeping it in the arsenal. It won't be long before somebody figures out there are dozens of compounds in composite which have never been tested for toxicity, mutagenicity or biological activity. Amalgam and composite are both fine materials which have both benefits and risks. The intelligent dentist working with an informed patient will have the wisdom to know which material is best. Blanket statements do not help.

Bruce Burgess,

Comox BC
3/4/2009 6:34:00 PM
Dental Magician
      I see your point, but I still disagree.  And I'm not arguing the use of amalgam, like you state, only that 4th generation bonding is still the gold standard.  Its advantages in my opinion far outweigh any additional time and steps involved in its placement.  In terms of bond strength, less incidence of marginal leakage, and a very good control of post-op sensitivity, nothing beats it.  Anyone can make a composite look "nice and good" with any bonding agent, but what will it llok like in 2, 3, or 4 years from now?  I'll bet that 4th gen bonded resin composites and used with resin cements, will look very good with little marginal staining, and much better than those used with other 5th, 6th, 7th generation bonding systems.

     I personally do not see where an amalgam is a better material in any case than composite or is a better indication over composite, other than a severe bis-gma allergy.   Hypersalivators? use rubber dam.  Children?- proper isolation.  Even in young children, I use total etch with 4th generation bonding.  Placing amalgam in childrens' teeth would be like painting their bedroom with lead-based paint.  Why would you do it?  Ease of placement, low cost, placement even with moisture, quick?  I don't see an advantage to its use even in adults.  Yes, this is a blanket statement or dare I say, an absolute.  I don't know if amalgam causes cancer or even hemorrhoids, but who knows?  There is a statement from the FDA dated June 2008 titled "FDA does an about face"somewhere in this forum and it states that the FDA for the first time acknowledges that amalgam can cause "neurotoxic" effects.  I view placing amalgams as a health hazard and there is no use for it that composites can't do.
3/4/2009 8:56:11 PM
Brucesown
Egads, where do you come up with something like amalgam is like painting a child's room with lead based paint. I was actually commenting on Dr. Christensen's article, not your post, I'm sorry if my wording was not clear. It's not about whether you think 4th or 10th generation bond is better. Look at the evidence and make your decision. You may come to a different conclusion than I do. That's fine and intelligent people can disagree on things. Please use some logical thought and don't be sucked in by emotional nonsense, which IMHO is Dr. Christensen's argument for not using amalgam. I imagine he probably has some better reasons if he sat down and thought about it, it just doesn't come across that way in the article. That was actually the point of my last post. If there actually was a perfect way of restoring teeth there would only be one material. Really its about making the fewest trade offs and silly emotional reasons are not a good basis for any decision. Except possibly getting married.

Cheers,

Bruce Burgess
4/28/2009 3:27:46 PM
conscientious
I have yet to see a cerec crown that doesn't appear lifeless.  All I've seen (and I've seen plenty) have poor marginal integrity (operators rely on the adhesive to fill in the voids), and appear dead.  You can cut through these things like butter.  I can only assume that Gordon has invested in these machines and prefers 2 hour crowns over beautifully crafted laboratory ones made by skilled ceramists under a microscope.  God help us.
Email Printer Friendly




|| 15 Minutes to Excellence || ADA News || Advertising || Ask Marty || Case Archives || Case Study || Communities || Conferences || Contact Us || Education || Equipment For Sale || Facebook || Forums || Future of Dentistry || Home || Hygienist Resources || Jobs || Links || Mobile || News in Brief || Online CE || Opinion || Privacy Policy || Twitter || Vendor Connect || Video || XML/RSS ||

Copyright © 2013 DrBicuspid.com. All Rights Reserved.