The purpose of this study was to evaluate hardness (indicator for polymerization) and thickness of two types of resin cement at coronal, middle and apical level of tooth root canal. Ten extracted maxillary incisors were instrumented and post space was prepared for cementation of titanium post. Samples were divided into two groups and each group was cemented either of the two types of resin cements; Panavia F [dual-cured (PF)] and Rely X Luting 2 [self-cured (RL)]. The teeth were longitudinally sectioned; hardness and thickness was measured using Vickers hardness tester and a microscope (Leica DMLM). SEM observations along the cement line at the 3 different root levels were performed. Statistical analysis was performed to test significance of differences in hardness and thickness of the two types of cement (t-test; p= 0.05) and at different levels of the same type (one-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparison; p= 0.05). Significant difference of hardness was found at the apical level between the two groups and between the coronal and apical level of PF (p<0.05); no significant differences in hardness and thickness were observed in RL (p>0.05). Moreover, voids were more obvious within the dual-cured group of cement. Dual-cured resin cement was found to be less polymerized than self-cured type at apical level. Increased thicknesses of resin cements in comparison to post space size were observed in both groups. Use of metallic post with resin cements needs further evaluation.

ABSTRACT Globally, non-syndromic tooth agenesis is commonly seen in clinical practice. However, its management is often complex and requires a multidisciplinary team approach for the maximal outcome. While various treatment options are possible, considerations for the treatment are not only based on the dentofacial conditions but also cultural and social background and personal preference of the patient. Thus, patientcentred care approach should always be practised for an optimal outcome. In the present case, a patient with established craniofacial growth presenting with bilateral agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors and over-retained deciduous maxillary left canine sought for aesthetic improvements. The patient did not prefer any orthodontic treatment citing a prolonged treatment duration and sub-optimal motivation as a hindrance. Thus, a prosthodontic only approach was taken by providing a conventional cantilever bridge and ceramic veneers to achieve the aims of treatment. This article discusses the possible limitation of such prosthodontic only solution in managing tooth agenesis.
Prosthodontics ; Anodontia