Emam Z N, Elsayed S M, Abu-Nawareg M, Zidan A Z, Abuelroos E M, Shokier H M R, Fansa H A, Elsisi H A, ElBanna K A
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Rehabilitation, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023 Mar;27(6):2232-2240. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202303_31757.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of two adhesive techniques on the retentive force of four all ceramic endocrowns.
Forty maxillary first molars of approximately similar size and shape were collected. The teeth were all decoronated 2 mm above the level of proximal cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and were all endodontically treated. The teeth were then randomly divided equally into four groups (10 each) according to all ceramic material used, as follows: Group I (VE) - Ten prepared molars were restored with hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic); Group II (LU) - Ten prepared molars were restored with resin Nano-ceramic (Lava Ultimate). Group III (CD) - Ten prepared molars were restored with zirconia-reinforced lithium di-silicate ceramic material (Celtra Duo); Group IV (LZ) - Ten prepared molars were restored with zirconia ceramic (Lava Zirconia). Each group was then subdivided into two equal subgroups (n=5) according to the type of cement (adhesive technique) used for cementation. Subgroup A (RX ARC): the endocrowns were cemented with a total-etch adhesive resin cement (RelyX ARC). Subgroup B (RXU): the endocrowns were cemented with self-adhesive resin luting cement (RelyX UniCem). The restorations were designed with an outer cylindrical handle located on buccal and palatal surfaces to provide a mean for the removal of the endocrowns during the pull-out testing. The cemented endocrowns were thermocycled and then removed along the path of insertion using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min. The retentive force was recorded, and the stress of dislodgement was calculated using the surface area of each preparation.
The highest mean dislodgement stresses were 64.3 MPa for Group I (VE), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between Group I, II and III and LZ showed the lowest values with significant difference between the other three groups. Regarding the type of cement, there was a statistically significant difference between RelyX ARC (mean=60.09 MPa) and RelyX Unicem (mean=49.73 MPa).
Retention of Vita Enamic, Lava Ultimate, and Celtra Duo are significantly higher than Lava Zirconia.
本体外研究的目的是评估两种粘结技术对四种全瓷内冠固位力的影响。
收集40颗大小和形状大致相似的上颌第一磨牙。所有牙齿均在近中牙骨质-釉质界（CEJ）上方2mm处截冠，并均进行根管治疗。然后根据所用的全瓷材料将牙齿随机平均分为四组（每组10颗），如下：第一组（VE）- 10颗预备磨牙用混合陶瓷（维他易美）修复；第二组（LU）- 10颗预备磨牙用树脂纳米陶瓷（拉瓦终极）修复；第三组（CD）- 10颗预备磨牙用氧化锆增强二硅酸锂陶瓷材料（泽康二代）修复；第四组（LZ）- 10颗预备磨牙用氧化锆陶瓷（拉瓦氧化锆）修复。然后根据用于粘结的水门汀类型（粘结技术）将每组再平均分为两个亚组（n = 5）。A亚组（RX ARC）：内冠用全酸蚀粘结树脂水门汀（瑞速德ARC）粘结；B亚组（RXU）：内冠用自粘结树脂粘结水门汀（瑞速德通用粘结剂）粘结。修复体设计有位于颊面和腭面的外部圆柱形柄，以便在拔出测试期间为去除内冠提供一种手段。粘结后的内冠进行热循环处理，然后使用万能试验机以0.5mm/min的速度沿插入路径取出。记录固位力，并使用每个预备体的表面积计算脱位应力。
第一组（VE）的平均脱位应力最高，为64.3MPa，而第一组、第二组和第三组之间无统计学显著差异，第四组（LZ）显示最低值，与其他三组有显著差异。关于水门汀类型，瑞速德ARC（平均值 = 60.09MPa）和瑞速德通用粘结剂（平均值 = 49.73MPa）之间存在统计学显著差异。
维他易美、拉瓦终极和泽康二代的固位力明显高于拉瓦氧化锆。
