Choice of cement for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Translucency of chairside monolithic zirconias using different sintering ovens: An in vitro investigation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the translucency of several monolithic zirconias (MZ) processed in various sintering ovens designed for single-visit, chairside use.

METHODS

Discs (n = 40) from zirconia blocks were fabricated for each MZ at manufacturer-recommended minimal thicknesses, as provided in each material's instructions for use: IPS e.max ZirCAD LT (ZLT); CEREC Zirconia+ (CZ+); 3M Chairside (3M); KATANA Zirconia (KT). Groups (n = 10) were sintered following manufacturer instructions for each oven: CEREC SpeedFire, Ivoclar CS4, Ivoclar CS6, and Ivoclar S2 (laboratory furnace control). Specimens were highly polished on one side and glazed on the other. Each side was measured with a spectrophotometer against white and black backgrounds to determine translucency parameter (TP) and contrast ratio (CR) values. Results for TP and CR for each material and oven combination were compared with a linear mixed model. Oven precision was evaluated using the Kruskall-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Glazed specimens were more translucent than polished ones (p < 0.001). ZLT and CZ+ were more translucent than 3M and KT regardless of the sintering oven (p < 0.01). Several oven/material combinations reached or exceeded the S2 oven TP: CS4 with CZ+ and 3M; CS6 with ZLT and KT (p < 0.01). SpeedFire was significantly less precise (p < 0.05) and produced lower TP values for ZLT, CZ+, and KT (p < 0.01). Results for TP and CR were highly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

MZ surface finish, material thickness, and oven used all had a significant effect on translucency. Some chairside-oriented solutions produced results with translucency equal to conventionally processed zirconia.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The translucency of a ceramic restoration is an important factor in determining its esthetics. Clinicians desiring the most esthetic outcomes with monolithic zirconia should be aware of the significant effects that surface finishing, material thickness, and the sintering oven used can have on restoration translucency.

The Effect of Restoration Thickness on the Fracture Resistance of 5 mol% Yttria-Containing Zirconia Crowns

BACKGROUND

To determine what thickness of 5 mol% yttria zirconia (5Y-Z) translucent crowns cemented with different cements and surface treatments would have equivalent fracture resistance as 3 mol% yttria (3Y-Z) crowns.

METHODS

The study included 0.8 mm, 1.0 mm, and 1.2 mm thickness 5Y-Z (Katana UTML) crowns and 0.5 and 1.0 mm thickness 3Y-Z (Katana HT) crowns as controls. The 5Y-Z crowns were divided among three treatment subgroups (n = 10/subgroup): (1) cemented using RMGIC (Rely X Luting Cement), (2) alumina particle-abraded then luted with the same cement, (3) alumina particle-abraded and cemented using a resin cement (Panavia SA Cement Universal). The 3Y-Z controls were alumina particle-abraded then cemented with RMGIC. The specimens were then loaded in compression at 30° until failure.

RESULTS

All 5Y-Z crowns (regardless of thickness or surface treatment) had a similar to or higher fracture force than the 0.5 mm 3Y-Z crowns. Only the 1.2 mm 5Y-Z crowns with resin cement showed significantly similar fracture force to the 1 mm 3Y-Z crowns.

CONCLUSION

In order to achieve a similar fracture resistance to 0.5 mm 3Y-Z crowns cemented with RMGIC, 5Y-Z crowns may be as thin as 0.8 mm. To achieve a similar fracture resistance to 1.0 mm 3Y-Z crowns cemented with RMGIC, 5Y-Z crowns must be 1.2 mm and bonded with resin cement.

Knowledge of Saudi dental students and interns towards luting cements and their applications in fixed prosthodontics

BACKGROUND

Enhancement of students' knowledge is essential in improving their clinical skills and performance. Thus, the curriculum should be prepared to achieve a better outcome. The current study aimed to determine the dental students' and interns' basic knowledge towards dental luting cements and their application in dental practice to improve the theoretical and clinical training sections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among dental students and interns at three Colleges of Dentistry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between September 2019-June 2020. An online questionnaire was used which included demographic data, questions about luting cement usage, cementation techniques, and commonly used cements in dental clinics. Descriptive analysis and chi-square test were used to show the association between level of dental education and the use of dental cements using SPSS software. The significance level was set at 5%.

RESULTS

The total respondents were 626 dental students/interns of whom 78.8% were undergraduate dental students. Participants who reported undergraduate studies as the source of information were 79.7%. The type of restoration was the main factor in luting cement selection (62.6%). Concerning the isolation technique in cementing laminate veneers, 49.7% used dri-angles, cotton rolls and saliva ejectors. Dual-cure resin cement was the most common cement used in all the mentioned restorations except in pressed porcelain laminate veneers and cement-retained implant-supported restorations.

CONCLUSIONS

Students' knowledge and practice in managing dental implants and porcelain laminate veneers need to be improved. The selection of a luting agent for a given restoration by students and interns was based on the basic knowledge, available cement, and the type of restoration. Awareness towards the management of short prepared teeth and custom-made cast posts and cores is also limited.

Acid resistance of self-adhesive resin luting cements - changes in surface texture parameters and microhardness

OBJECTIVES

When consumed in excess, acidic foods and beverages can cause dental erosions leading to irreversible loss of tooth substance. In many cases, prosthetic rehabilitation of the damaged teeth is mandatory. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate, for the first time on this scale, the resistance of various commonly used self-adhesive resin luting cements (Bifix SE, VOCO; G-Cem LinkAce, GC; RelyX Unicem, 3 M Oral Care; SpeedCEM Plus, Ivoclar ) against acidic media, and to find out whether they can withstand long-term exposure. These results were compared with an adhesive resin luting cement (Panavia V5, Kuraray) that functioned as reference gold standard. Furthermore we applied area roughness parameters for surface texture analysis in the present investigation, to highlight their advantages for investigations on the surface quality of resin luting cements.

METHODS

Six specimens with identical diameter (10 mm) and thickness (3 mm) were prepared from each self-adhesive and adhesive resin luting cement and forwarded to an incubation in various acidic media for a period of 232 h. Conductivity and pH-values of each acidic medium was analyzed for each material group prior (t 0) and after exposure (t 1). The specimens were examined for Vickers microhardness and surface quality. For the evaluation of surface roughness, the parameters Sa, Sdr, Spc Spk, Sk, and Svk were investigated by using different filtered surfaces (S-L; S-F) according to ISO 25 178. Statistical analysis was conducted at a significance level of α = 0.050.

RESULTS

For the evaluation of the acid resistance of self-adhesive resin luting cements investigations on conductivity and pH-value assessment of storage solution appear unsuitable, while the assessment of microhardness and surface analysis revealed valid data. It could be shown that changes in surface texture of the resin luting cements can be determinend in qualitative and quantitative manner. While the microhardness and surface quality of some resin luting cements hardly changed, others showed significantly reduced values in microhardness and changes in their surface quality (p < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

The data of the current study emphasize the relevance of interactions between resin luting cements and acids and suggest further laboratory and clinical studies to elucidate its impact on the clinical performance of the materials investigated.

Cement selection criteria for full coverage restorations: A comprehensive review of literature

BACKGROUND

Proper cement selection in fixed prosthesis plays a determinative role in providing long-term serviceability, retention, caries prevention, and patient satisfaction. This study, reviews different luting agent characteristics and their application based on different clinical situations and different types of full coverage restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Medline, and Google scholar using following keywords or combinations: restoration, full coverage, PFM, porcelain fused to metal, all ceramic, zirconia, ceramic, casting, fixed partial denture, cement*, dental cement, cement selection, and retention. The most related articles were selected for review.

RESULTS

Choosing a proper luting agent is highly dependent on scientific knowledge regarding the characteristics of restorative materials and luting agents. Conventional cements could be indicated in various situations; however, some restorative materials or clinical situations call for resin-cements to provide predictable retention, support, and durability.

CONCLUSIONS

Conscious selection of retentive cement for each type of restoration/material is necessary to provide predictable successful treatment and reduce the potential complications. Key words:Adhesive cement, dental bridgework, dental cements, dental crowns, dental porcelain, prostheses and implants.

Fracture strength of zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations following endodontic access

OBJECTIVES

To compare the fracture load of zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns prepared with endodontic access with fine and coarse diamond instruments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

0.8 mm (3Y zirconia) or 1 mm (lithium disilicate) crowns were luted to resin composite dies with resin-modified glass ionomer (zirconia) or self-adhesive resin (lithium disilicate) cement. A 2.5 mm endodontic access hole was placed in each crown with fine (8369DF.31.025FOOTBALL) or coarse (6379 DC.31.023FOOTBALL) diamond instruments and restored with composite. A control group was prepared without access holes. Crowns were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles (5-55°C) and tested in compression with a steel indenter until failure (n = 8/group). A one-way ANOVA and Dunnett 2-sided test (alpha = 0.05) compared differences in fracture load between groups.

RESULTS

For zirconia, there was no statistical difference between the control group (2335 ± 160 N) and coarse diamond group (2345 ± 246 N); however, the fine diamond group (2077 ± 216 N) was significantly lower. For lithium disilicate, there was no statistical difference between the control group (2113 ± 183 N) and the fine (2049 ± 105 N) or coarse (2240 ± 118 N) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

3Y zirconia crowns became weaker when accessed with a fine diamond instrument. There was no negative effect of the endodontic access with bonded lithium disilicate crowns.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Conservative endodontic access openings in high-strength ceramic restorations do not have a negative effect on their static fracture load. The coarse zirconia-cutting diamond rotary instrument is more efficient and has a less detrimental effect on the strength of the crowns than a fine diamond rotary instrument.

Inhibition of root dentin demineralization by ion releasing cements

OBJECTIVES

To compare the ability of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and bioactive cements to prevent root dentin demineralization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty molars were prepared at the cementum-enamel junction (n = 10) and restored with three bioactive cements (Activa Bioactive Cement, ACT; Ceramir Crown and Bridge, CER; and Theracem, THE), a self-adhesive resin cement (Rely X Unicem 2, UNI), and a RMGI cement (Rely X Luting Plus, LUT). Specimens were cycled for 30 days between a demineralization solution (pH = 4) composed of 0.1 M lactic acid and 3 mM Ca₃ (PO₄ )₂ for 4 hours and a remineralization solution (pH = 7.0) composed of 1.5 mM Ca, 0.9 mM P, and 20 mM Tris(hydroxymethyl)-aminomethane for 20 hours. Specimens were sectioned to 100 μm and evaluated with polarized light microscopy. A line was drawn parallel with the zone of demineralization for each tooth. The areas of "inhibition" (external to the line) were measured as positive values and "wall lesions" (pulpal to the line) were measured as negative areas.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between materials for "inhibition/wall lesion" areas in root dentin (P < .001) and ranked as (μm² , mean ± SD): LUT (7700 ± 2500) > CER (3800 ± 1900), THE (2100 ± 2600), and ACT (1400 ± 700) > UNI (-2000 ± 1700).

CONCLUSIONS

Bioactive cements showed net areas of demineralization inhibition albeit at a lower level than a reference RMGI cement.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

RMGI or bioactive cements may be indicated for patients at risk of secondary caries around crown margins.

Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

PURPOSE

To determine if surface treatment and cement selection for traditional 3 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (3Y-PSZ), "translucent" 5 mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia (5Y-Z), or lithium disilicate crowns affected their fracture load.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Crowns with 0.8 mm uniform thickness (96, n = 8/group) were milled of 3Y-PSZ (Lava Plus), 5Y-Z (Lava Esthetic), or lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) and sintered/crystallized. Half the crowns were either particle-abraded with 30 µm alumina (zirconias) or etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid (lithium disilicate), and the other half received no surface treatment. Half the crowns from each group were luted with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus) and half were luted with a resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2) to resin composite dies. Crowns were load cycled (100,000 cycles, 100 N force, 24°C water) and then loaded with a steel indenter until failure. A three-way ANOVA examined the effects of material, cement, and surface treatment on fracture load. Post-hoc comparisons were performed with the Tukey-Krammer method.

RESULTS

Fracture load was signficiantly different for materials and cements (p < 0.0001) but not surface treatments (p = 0.77). All lithium disilicate crowns luted with RMGI failed in fatigue loading cycling; 3Y-PSZ and 5Y-Z crowns luted with resin showed a higher fracture load compared with RMGI (p < 0.001). With resin cement, there was no signficant difference in fracture load between 5Y-Z and lithium disiliciate (p = 1) whereas 3Y-PSZ had a higher fracture load (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cement type affected fracture load of crowns but surface treatment did not. The 0.8 mm uniform thick crowns tested benefited from using resin cement regardless of type of ceramic material. Crowns fabricated from 5Y-Z may be particle-abraded if luted with resin cement.