Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2020 Jan-Dec;18:2280800020905768. doi: 10.1177/2280800020905768.
The aim was to compare restorative marginal integrity of ceramic crowns luted with bioactive and resin cements using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) microleakage evaluations and bond strength assessment.
Thirty molar teeth were prepared by sectioning and polishing for dentin exposure for resin cement build-ups. Teeth were randomly divided among three groups of cements: (1) bioactive (ACTIVA); (2) glass ionomer cement (GIC; Ketac Cem); and (3) resin luting agent (Nexus 3). Bonding regime and build-ups (4 mm × 2 mm) were performed using the recommended protocol. For microleakage assessment, 30 premolar teeth were prepared for dentin-bonded crowns using lithium disilicate ceramic and the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technique. Crowns were cemented with standard load, cement amount, and duration using three cements (Group A: bioactive; Group B: GIC; Group C: resin) and photopolymerized. Cemented crowns were evaluated for volumetric infiltration using micro-CT (Skyscan, Bruker 1173- at 86 kV, 93 µA, 620 ms) after immersion in 50% solution of silver nitrate (AgNO) (24 hours). Shear bond strength (SBS) was assessed by fracture of cement build-ups at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine.
Mean SBS among bioactive (21.54 ± 3.834 MPa) specimens was significantly higher than that for GIC (14.08 ± 3.25 MPa) specimens ( < 0.01), but they were comparable to resin samples ( > 0.05) (24.73 ± 4.32 MPa). Microleakage was significantly lower in crowns luted with bioactive (0.381 ± 0.134) cement compared to GIC (1.057 ± 0.399 mm) ( < 0.01) and resin (0.734 ± 0.166 mm) ( = 0.014) cemented crowns. The type of luting agent had a significant influence on the microleakage of crowns and bond strength to dentin ( < 0.05).
Bioactive cement exhibited less microleakage and comparable SBS to resin luting agents in in vitro conditions.
本研究旨在通过微渗漏评估和结合强度评估，使用微计算机断层扫描（micro-CT）比较陶瓷冠用生物活性和树脂水门汀的修复边缘完整性。
将 30 颗磨牙制备成暴露牙本质的部分，并进行抛光以用于树脂水门汀堆筑。将牙齿随机分为三组水门汀：（1）生物活性（ACTIVA）；（2）玻璃离子水门汀（GIC；Ketac Cem）；和（3）树脂黏结剂（Nexus 3）。使用推荐的方案进行粘结处理和堆筑（4mm×2mm）。为了评估微渗漏，使用锂硅玻璃陶瓷和计算机辅助设计与计算机辅助制造技术制备 30 颗前磨牙的牙本质粘结冠。使用三种水门汀（A 组：生物活性；B 组：GIC；C 组：树脂），以标准负载、水泥用量和时间进行冠粘结，并通过光聚合固化。在硝酸银（AgNO）50%溶液（24 小时）中浸泡后，使用微 CT（Skyscan，Bruker 1173-在 86kV、93µA、620ms）评估粘结冠的体积渗透情况。在万能试验机上以 0.5mm/min 的十字头速度进行断裂，评估粘结剂堆筑的剪切结合强度（SBS）。
生物活性（21.54±3.834MPa）试件的平均 SBS 显著高于玻璃离子水门汀（14.08±3.25MPa）试件（ < 0.01），但与树脂样本（ > 0.05）（24.73±4.32MPa）相当。与玻璃离子水门汀（1.057±0.399mm）（ < 0.01）和树脂（0.734±0.166mm）（ = 0.014）水门汀粘结的冠相比，用生物活性水泥粘结的冠的微渗漏显著更低（0.381±0.134mm）。水门汀类型对冠的微渗漏和牙本质结合强度有显著影响（ < 0.05）。
在体外条件下，生物活性水泥的微渗漏较少，SBS 与树脂水门汀相当。
