Marginal Fit and Retention Strength of Zirconia Crowns Cemented by Self-adhesive Resin Cements

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

SUMMARY

The absolute marginal gap (AMG) precementation and postcementation and the retention of zirconia crowns cemented to standardized molar preparations (4×10) by self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) were evaluated. The following SARCs were used: RelyX U-200 (RXU200; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), SmartCem 2 (SC2; Dentsply, Milford, DE, USA), and G-Cem Automix (GCA; GC, Alsip, IL, USA). The control adhesive resin cement was Panavia 21 (PAN; Kuraray Dental Co Ltd, Osaka, Japan). Twenty measuring locations at a constant interval along the margins were marked, and the AMG was measured by an image analysis system connected to a stereomicroscope (20×). The cemented copings were aged 270 days at 100% humidity and 37°C and then underwent 10,000 thermal cycles, 5°C-55°C. After aging, the crowns were tested for retention, and the debonded surfaces were examined at 3× magnification. The mean marginal gaps precementation and postcementation were 34.8 ± 17.4 μm and 72.1 ± 31 μm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the cements. A significant difference (p≤0.001) in retention between the cements was found. The highest values were obtained for SC2 and GCA (1385 Pa and 1229 Pa, respectively), but these presented no statistically significant differences. The lowest values were found for PAN and RXU200 (738 Pa and 489 Pa, respectively), but these showed no statistically significant differences. The predominant mode of failure in all of the groups was mixed, and no correlations were found between marginal gap and retention.

Related collections

Most cited references 51

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Considerations in measurement of marginal fit.

J Robert Holmes, Stephen Bayne, Gene Holland … (1989)

The terminology describing "fit" and the techniques used for measuring fit vary considerably in the literature. Although fit can be most easily defined in terms of "misfit," there are many different locations between a tooth and a restoration where the measurements can be made. In this work, the measurements of misfit at different locations are geometrically related to each other and defined as internal gap, marginal gap, vertical marginal discrepancy, horizontal marginal discrepancy, overextended margin, underextended margin, absolute marginal discrepancy, and seating discrepancy. The significance and difference in magnitude of different locations are presented. The best alternative is perhaps the absolute marginal discrepancy, which would always be the largest measurement of error at the margin and would reflect the total misfit at that point.

0 comments Cited 143 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review.

Igor J Pesun, Daniel H. Conrad, Sook Jin Seong (2007)

Developments in ceramic core materials such as lithium disilicate, aluminum oxide, and zirconium oxide have allowed more widespread application of all-ceramic restorations over the past 10 years. With a plethora of ceramic materials and systems currently available for use, an overview of the scientific literature on the efficacy of this treatment therapy is indicated. This article reviews the current literature covering all-ceramic materials and systems, with respect to survival, material properties, marginal and internal fit, cementation and bonding, and color and esthetics, and provides clinical recommendations for their use. A comprehensive review of the literature was completed seeking evidence for the treatment of teeth with all-ceramic restorations. A search of English language peer-reviewed literature was undertaken using MEDLINE and PubMed with a focus on evidence-based research articles published between 1996 and 2006. A hand search of relevant dental journals was also completed. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled studies, longitudinal experimental clinical studies, longitudinal prospective studies, and longitudinal retrospective studies were reviewed. The last search was conducted on June 12, 2007. Data supporting the clinical application of all-ceramic materials and systems was sought. The literature demonstrates that multiple all-ceramic materials and systems are currently available for clinical use, and there is not a single universal material or system for all clinical situations. The successful application is dependent upon the clinician to match the materials, manufacturing techniques, and cementation or bonding procedures, with the individual clinical situation. Within the scope of this systematic review, there is no evidence to support the universal application of a single ceramic material and system for all clinical situations. Additional longitudinal clinical studies are required to advance the development of ceramic materials and systems.