Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Fars, Iran.
Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Care Services, Yazd, Iran.
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 18;17(1):e0262582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262582. eCollection 2022.
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two types of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of two different all-ceramic restorations cemented onto customized zirconia abutments. Forty-two crowns were made of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics (n = 21 per group) and cemented on customized zirconia abutments by using two provisional resin cements of TempBond Clear and Implantlink Semi, and TempBond serving as the control (n = 7 per cement subgroup). The specimens' color was measured before and after cementation and after thermocycling. The color difference was calculated by using CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE00). The tensile force was applied to assess the retentive strength. Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's post-hoc, and Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests were used to compare ΔE00(1) and ΔE00(2) and two-way ANOVA followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test and T-test were used to compare retentive strength between subgroups. In the lithium disilicate group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi cements subgroup (P = 0.001). But, in the monolithic zirconia group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi (P = 0.020) and TempBond Clear cements (P = 0.007). In the monolithic zirconia group, the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.003) and Implantlink Semi cement (P = 0.001). However, in the lithium disilicate group, Implantlink Semi cement was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.019) and TempBond (control) (P = 0.001). The final color of both restorations was significantly affected by the provisional resin cement type. The retentive strength was influenced by both the type of cement and ceramic.
本研究旨在评估两种临时树脂水门汀对两种不同全瓷修复体黏固于定制氧化锆基台上的颜色和固位力的影响。共制作 42 个单晶氧化锆和锂硅二硅酸锂陶瓷冠（每组 21 个）并黏固于定制氧化锆基台上，使用两种临时树脂水门汀 TempBond Clear 和 Implantlink Semi 以及 TempBond（对照组，每组 7 个试件）。黏固前后及冷热循环后测量试件颜色，采用 CIEDE2000 公式计算颜色差值（ΔE00）。采用拉伸力评估固位力。采用 Kruskal-Wallis、Dunn 事后检验和 Mann-Whitney 非参数检验比较 ΔE00(1) 和 ΔE00(2)，采用双因素方差分析，然后进行单因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验及 T 检验比较亚组间固位力。在锂硅二硅酸锂组中，对照组（TempBond）的 ΔE00 显著高于 Implantlink Semi 水门汀组（P = 0.001）。但在单晶氧化锆组中，对照组（TempBond）的 ΔE00 显著高于 Implantlink Semi（P = 0.020）和 TempBond Clear 水门汀组（P = 0.007）。在单晶氧化锆组中，对照组（TempBond）的固位力显著高于 TempBond Clear（P = 0.003）和 Implantlink Semi 水门汀组（P = 0.001）。但在锂硅二硅酸锂组中，Implantlink Semi 水门汀的固位力显著高于 TempBond Clear（P = 0.019）和 TempBond（对照组）（P = 0.001）。两种修复体的最终颜色均显著受临时树脂水门汀类型的影响。固位力同时受水门汀类型和陶瓷类型的影响。
