Rajput Geeta, Ahmed Saad, Chaturvedi Saurabh, Addas Mohamed Khaled, Bhagat Tushar Vitthalrao, Gurumurthy Vishwanath, Alqahtani Saeed M, Alobaid Mohammed A, Alsubaiy Ebrahim Fihaid, Gupta Kanishk
Department of Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge Dr Ziauddin Ahmad Dental College, Hospital Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India.
Department of Oral Pathology, Microbiology Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Center, Kanpur 208024, India.
Polymers (Basel). 2022 Jun 27;14(13):2609. doi: 10.3390/polym14132609.
Microleakage is a persistent problem despite advancement in materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics. This leads to the importance of sound crown foundation material and luting agents used to maintain the marginal seal. The literature is deficient with studies, comparing microleakage under various crown foundation materials and luting agents, especially with CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) metal crowns. This study was aimed to compare microleakage in a nanocomposite/dentinal bonding agent and amalgam/cavity varnish as crown foundation materials luted with two different luting cements: resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and self-adhesive resin cement, under both dry and contaminated conditions. A hundred intact, caries-free human molars were prepared to receive crown foundation material and extra coronal restorations. Amalgams with cavity varnish and nanocomposites with dentinal bonding agent in both ideal and contaminated conditions were used as crown foundation materials. After restoration, each sample was cemented with a CAD-CAM milled metal crown using two different luting agents-resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and self-adhesive resin cements both in ideal and contaminated conditions. Cementation was followed by thermocycling of samples, immersion in erythrosine B dye, embedding in clear auto polymerizing acrylic resin and sectioning to evaluate microleakage using stereomicroscope. The mean microleakage between different luting cements on the experimental side of the facial surface was 137.64 μm and 211.01 μm for resin-reinforced GIC and for self-adhesive resin cement was 119.78 μm and 150.42 μm, under ideal and contaminated condition, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean micro-leakage between different crown foundation material and cement groups used in the study. The composites and amalgam, both when used as crown foundation material and luted with use of technically advanced CAD-CAM metal crown with self-adhesive resin cement (in both ideal or contaminated condition), showed less microleakage than in resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Overall, the self-adhesive resin cement showed comparatively reduced microleakage in all combinations with different crown foundations. Thus, this combination can be used in daily clinical practice to provide better protection from further decay.
尽管固定修复学在材料和技术方面取得了进步,但微渗漏仍然是一个长期存在的问题。这凸显了良好的冠修复基础材料和粘结剂对于维持边缘封闭的重要性。目前的文献中缺乏关于比较各种冠修复基础材料和粘结剂下微渗漏情况的研究,尤其是对于CAD-CAM(计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造)金属冠的研究。本研究旨在比较纳米复合材料/牙本质粘结剂和银汞合金/窝洞封闭剂作为冠修复基础材料,在使用两种不同粘结水门汀(树脂增强玻璃离子水门汀和自粘结树脂水门汀)的情况下,在干燥和污染条件下的微渗漏情况。选取100颗完整无龋的人类磨牙,预备后用于接受冠修复基础材料和冠外修复体。在理想和污染条件下,分别使用涂有窝洞封闭剂的银汞合金和涂有牙本质粘结剂的纳米复合材料作为冠修复基础材料。修复后,在理想和污染条件下,分别使用两种不同的粘结剂(树脂增强玻璃离子水门汀和自粘结树脂水门汀)将每个样本与CAD-CAM铣削金属冠粘结。粘结后对样本进行热循环处理,浸入赤藓红B染料中,嵌入透明自凝丙烯酸树脂中并切片,使用体视显微镜评估微渗漏情况。在理想和污染条件下,面部表面实验侧不同粘结水门汀之间的平均微渗漏,树脂增强玻璃离子水门汀分别为137.64μm和211.01μm,自粘结树脂水门汀分别为119.78μm和150.42μm。本研究中使用的不同冠修复基础材料和水门汀组之间的平均微渗漏存在显著差异。复合材料和银汞合金,无论是作为冠修复基础材料,还是与技术先进的CAD-CAM金属冠一起使用自粘结树脂水门汀粘结(在理想或污染条件下),其微渗漏均低于树脂增强玻璃离子水门汀。总体而言,自粘结树脂水门汀在与不同冠修复基础材料的所有组合中均表现出相对减少的微渗漏。因此,这种组合可用于日常临床实践,以更好地防止进一步龋坏。