Retention of zirconium oxide copings using different types of luting agents

Bonding Effectiveness of Saliva-Contaminated Monolithic Zirconia Ceramics Using Different Decontamination Protocols

Objective

This research study investigated the effect of new decontamination protocols on the bonding capacity of saliva-contaminated monolithic zirconia (MZ) ceramics cemented with two different monomer-containing self-adhesive resin cements.

Materials and Methods

Standardized tooth preparations (4 mm. axial height) were performed for eighty human maxillary premolars under constant water cooling system. Eighty monolithic zirconia crowns (Whitepeaks Supreme Monolith) (n = 8/10 groups) were manufactured by CAD-CAM. Specimens were kept in the artificial saliva at pH = 7.3 for 1 minute at 37°C except control groups. The specimens have not been prealumina blasted and grouped according to cleaning methods and resin cements: control groups (C) (no saliva contamination + GPDM + 4-META (N) (CN) and 10-MDP (M) containing resin cement (CM), alumina blasted (AL) + GPDM + 4-META (ALN) and 10-MDP containing resin cement (ALM), zirconium oxide containing universal cleaning agent (IC) applied + GPDM + 4-META (N) (ICN) and 10-MDP containing resin cement (ICM), pumice (P) applied + GPDM + 4-META (PN) and 10-MDP containing resin cement (PM), and air-water spray (AW) applied + GPDM + 4-META (AWN) and 10-MDP containing resin cement (AWM)). Monobond Plus was applied to all surfaces for 40 seconds before cementation. The thermal cycle was applied at 5,000 cycles after cementation. The crowns were tested in tensile mode at a speed of 1 mm/min. The mode of failure was recorded. SEM examinations were carried out at different magnifications. Data were analyzed using rank-based Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.

Results

No significant differences were found between the surface treatments and between the two types of resin cements. Interaction effects between surface treatments and resin cements were found to be significant by two-way ANOVA analysis. ICM group resulted in significantly better bond strength results compared with CN. ICM was found to result in better bond strength results compared with PM. The combination of universal cleaning agent and 10-MDP containing resin cement had significantly the highest cementation bond strength values. The increasing order of mean tensile bond strength values of decontamination protocols was C < AW < P < AL < IC. The mean tensile bond strength of 10-MDP containing resin cement was slightly higher than GPDM + 4-META containing resin cement.

Conclusions

Universal cleaning agents can be preferred as an efficient cleaning method with 10-MDP-containing cement after saliva contamination for better adhesive bond strength of 4 mm crown preparation height of monolithic zirconia ceramics.

The Effect of Dentine Desensitizing Agents on the Retention of Cemented Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: The use of desensitizing agents (DA) after tooth preparation to prevent hypersensitivity is well documented in the literature. A fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) should have good retention to be successful. Inadequate retention may result in microleakage, secondary caries, and, eventually, dislodgement of the FDP. The effect of DAs on the retention of FDPs has been widely studied in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the effect of dentine desensitizing agents, used to prevent post-cementation hypersensitivity, on the retention of cemented FDPs. The null hypothesis framed was that there is no effect of dentine desensitizing agents on the retention of cemented FDPs. The focused PICO question was as follows: “Does the application of dentine desensitizing agents (I) affect the retention (O) of cemented fixed dental prosthesis (P) when compared to non-dentine desensitizing groups (C)”? Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were systematically searched and, on the basis of the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. A modified CONSORT scale for in vitro studies was used to assess the quality of the selected studies, as all included studies were in vitro studies. Results: Most of the studies compared the effect of more than one type of DA on retention. The results of the selected studies varied due to differences in the composition of tested dentine DAs and types of luting cements. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the retention values of FDPs cemented using zinc phosphate cement were reduced with most of the DAs, whereas retention values increased when GIC, resin-modified GIC, and resin cements were used with the majority of DAs. These findings are important, as they can guide dentists in selecting the DA before cementing the crowns with the luting agent of their choice, without compromising the retention of the crowns.

Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of different cement systems with different ceramic primers on the retention strength of zirconia crowns.

METHODS

Thirty extracted molars were prepared with flat occlusal surfaces, 20 degrees taper, and 3 mm axial wall height. A zirconia crown with an occlusal bar was fabricated for each tooth. All specimens were divided (n = 10) into; Group M: Multilink Speed/Monobond N, Group P: Panavia V5/Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Group D: Duo-Link universal/Z-Prime Plus. The intaglio surfaces of crowns were air-abraded using 50 µm alumina at 2.5 bar for 10 s. Then each crown was cemented onto its corresponding tooth. All specimens were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles between 5 and 55 °C. Each crown was subjected to gradually increasing vertical load along the path of insertion through hooks engaging the occlusal bar using a universal testing machine until failure. The force at dislodgment was recorded and retention strength was calculated for each specimen. The failure modes were recorded for each specimen. The data were statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test followed by Tukey HSD test (α = .05).

RESULTS

Group D showed lowest strength (1.42 ± 0.23 MPa) and differed significantly (P < .001) from Group M (2.71 ± 0.45 MPa) and Group P (2.47 ± 0.41 MPa). There was no significant difference (P = .34) between Group M and Group P. The failure modes for Groups M and Group P were mainly cohesive, while Group D showed adhesive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The retention strength of zirconia crowns was improved with Multilink Speed and Panavia V5 cement systems, while the use of the Duo-Link Universal cement system only showed half of those retention strength values.

Influence of Hydrofluoric and Nitric Acid Pre-Treatment and Type of Adhesive Cement on Retention of Zirconia Crowns

Background: The aim of this study was to test the impact of hot acids etching and two types of adhesive cement on the retention of zirconia crowns. Methods: Forty maxillary premolars were prepared, and zirconia crowns were designed and fabricated with proximal extensions, then divided into 4 groups (n = 10). Group AP; the crowns were air-abraded and cemented using Panavia SA Cement. Group AL; the crowns were air- abraded and cemented using GC LinkForce. Group AHP; the crowns were air-abraded, etched with the hot acids (48% hydrofluoric acid and 69% nitric acid), and cemented using Panavia SA Cement. Group AHL; the crowns were air-abraded, etched with the hot acids, and cemented using GC LinkForce. Each zirconia crown was pre-treated and bonded to its corresponding tooth. After thermocycling (5–55 °C/10,000), the retention test was performed and the load required to dislodge the crown was reported in Newton (N), and mode of failure was recorded. The retention strength (MPa) was calculated for each tested variable and statistically analyzed. Results: Group AHP showed the highest mean value of the retention strength, followed by group AP then group AHL. Group AL showed the lowest value. A statistically significant effect (p = 0.001) of the hot acids etching on the retention of zirconia crown was found. Also, there was a significant effect (p = 0.000) of the cement type. The interaction between surface treatment and the cement type has no significant impact (p = 0.882). The main mode of failure for Panavia SA Cement is mixed mode of failure, while for G-CEM LinkForce is adhesive failure. Conclusions: Hot acid etching pre-treatment improved the retention of zirconia crown. Usage of Panavia SA Cement with hot acids etching is effective can be used for adhesive cementation of zirconia crown.