Department of Conservative Dentistry and Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Mansoura, Mansoura, Egypt.
J Prosthodont. 2010 Oct;19(7):523-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00637.x. Epub 2010 Aug 16.
Resistance of machined crowns to microleakage when cemented with new self-adhesive cements has not been fully investigated. This study evaluated microleakage of machined crowns milled from porcelain and composite blocks and bonded to teeth with self-adhesive and conventional resin cement.
Thirty-two freshly extracted premolars of similar shape and size were sterilized and mounted in resin blocks. Teeth received standard crown preparations with 1-mm circumferential shoulder finish line, flat occlusal surface reduced by 2 mm, and ideal angle of convergence. Prepared teeth were divided into two equal groups and assigned to either porcelain (Vita Mark II, Vident) or composite (Paradigm MZ100, 3M ESPE) blocks for crown fabrication. Optical impressions were captured for each tooth with the intraoral camera of a CEREC 3D machine. Crowns were designed and milled from both materials. Each group was then subdivided into two subgroups (n = 8) according to cement used (self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE or resin cement with self-etching adhesive, Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray). Following seating, a 5-kg weight was applied on the occlusal surface of the crown for 5 minutes. Specimens were then stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens were thermocycled for 3000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C, then coated with nail varnish and immersed in a 2.0% basic red fuchsine dye solution for 24 hours. Teeth were then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally and assessed under magnification for microleakage. A five-point scale was used to score degree of microleakage. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test.
Crown material had no significant effect on microleakage (p= 0.67); however, cement type had a significant effect (p < 0.0001), with Panavia F 2.0 resulting in lower microleakage scores than RelyX Unicem.
Compared to the self-adhesive cement, the resin cement with separate primer/bonding agent resulted in significantly lower microleakage scores, irrespective of crown material.
尚未充分研究用新型自黏固剂黏固时,机加工冠的抗微渗漏性能。本研究评估了由瓷块和复合块加工而成的机加工冠的微渗漏情况,并将其黏固于牙齿上,使用自黏固和传统树脂黏固剂。
32 颗形状和尺寸相似的新鲜前磨牙经消毒后,固定在树脂块中。牙接受标准冠预备,有 1-mm 周向肩台线、2-mm 平颌面降低、理想的会聚角度。预备好的牙被分为两组,每组一半的牙分配到瓷块(Vita Mark II,Vident)或复合块(Paradigm MZ100,3M ESPE)中用于冠制作。使用 CEREC 3D 机器的口内相机为每个牙拍摄光学印模。从两种材料中设计和加工冠。然后,根据使用的黏固剂(自黏固树脂黏固剂,RelyX Unicem,3M ESPE 或带自酸蚀黏结剂的树脂黏固剂,Panavia F 2.0,Kuraray)将每组再分为两个亚组(n = 8)。黏固后,在冠的咬合面上施加 5 公斤的重量 5 分钟。然后将样本在 37°C 的水中储存 24 小时。样本在 5°C 和 55°C 之间进行 3000 次热循环,然后用指甲油涂覆并浸入 2.0%碱性红浮色染料溶液中 24 小时。然后冲洗牙齿并沿近远中方向切割,在放大倍数下评估微渗漏情况。使用五分制量表评估微渗漏程度。使用双向方差分析和 Kruskal-Wallis 非参数检验对数据进行统计学分析。
冠材料对微渗漏无显著影响(p = 0.67);然而,黏固剂类型有显著影响(p < 0.0001),Panavia F 2.0 的微渗漏评分低于 RelyX Unicem。
与自黏固剂相比,带单独底漆/黏结剂的树脂黏固剂的微渗漏评分显著降低,与冠材料无关。