Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

In vitro microleakage of luting cements and crown foundation material.
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Mar; 85(3):292-8.JP

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Microleakage is a concern for the long-term prognosis of a cemented crown and foundation.

PURPOSE

The aims of this investigation were, first, to evaluate microleakage of zinc phosphate cement and resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement under ideal (dry) versus contaminated (wet) conditions, and second, to compare 3 foundations under both ideal and contaminated conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred forty extracted molar teeth were cleaned and mounted. Tooth preparations for complete veneer cast crowns were completed with a chamfer finish line. A mesial surface class II cavity preparation 4 mm wide buccolingually and 2 mm deep was made in each tooth. Seven restorative groups were formed: amalgam/cavity varnish, amalgam/dentinal bonding agent, and composite/dentinal bonding agent, each with dry and contaminated groups, and a seventh group of class II cavity preparations without foundations. Finish lines for crown margins were refined 1.5 mm gingival to the restoration. Artificial crowns were cast in type III gold. Treatment groups were divided into 4 cement groups: dry and contaminated zinc phosphate cement and dry and contaminated resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The specimens were thermocycled and immersed in erythrosine B solution for 24 hours. Subsequently, they were rinsed, and their coronal portions were embedded in clear resin. Teeth were sectioned mesiodistally, and standard photomicrographs were made. The microleakage of each restoration and crown was measured.

RESULTS

The least foundation microleakage was recorded for amalgam/dentinal bonding agents (ideal group) and composite/dentinal bonding agents (ideal group). The most microleakage was observed within the group without a foundation. In cement groups, the control and experiment sides were evaluated separately but displayed the same order of finding. The least leakage was recorded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (ideal group); the most microleakage was noted with zinc phosphate cement (ideal group). An interaction was demonstrated on the experimental side between cements and the foundations (P=.0001).

CONCLUSION

Within the experimental conditions of this study, less microleakage was recorded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (ideal or contaminated) than with zinc phosphate cement (ideal or contaminated). There also was less microleakage evident with a foundation of silver amalgam or composite when a dentinal bonding agent was used under ideal conditions.

Authors+Show Affiliations

School of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. terry-lindquist@uiowa.eduNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11264938

Citation

Lindquist, T J., and J Connolly. "In Vitro Microleakage of Luting Cements and Crown Foundation Material." The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 85, no. 3, 2001, pp. 292-8.
Lindquist TJ, Connolly J. In vitro microleakage of luting cements and crown foundation material. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(3):292-8.
Lindquist, T. J., & Connolly, J. (2001). In vitro microleakage of luting cements and crown foundation material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 85(3), 292-8.
Lindquist TJ, Connolly J. In Vitro Microleakage of Luting Cements and Crown Foundation Material. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(3):292-8. PubMed PMID: 11264938.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - In vitro microleakage of luting cements and crown foundation material. AU - Lindquist,T J, AU - Connolly,J, PY - 2001/3/27/pubmed PY - 2001/5/26/medline PY - 2001/3/27/entrez SP - 292 EP - 8 JF - The Journal of prosthetic dentistry JO - J Prosthet Dent VL - 85 IS - 3 N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Microleakage is a concern for the long-term prognosis of a cemented crown and foundation. PURPOSE: The aims of this investigation were, first, to evaluate microleakage of zinc phosphate cement and resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement under ideal (dry) versus contaminated (wet) conditions, and second, to compare 3 foundations under both ideal and contaminated conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred forty extracted molar teeth were cleaned and mounted. Tooth preparations for complete veneer cast crowns were completed with a chamfer finish line. A mesial surface class II cavity preparation 4 mm wide buccolingually and 2 mm deep was made in each tooth. Seven restorative groups were formed: amalgam/cavity varnish, amalgam/dentinal bonding agent, and composite/dentinal bonding agent, each with dry and contaminated groups, and a seventh group of class II cavity preparations without foundations. Finish lines for crown margins were refined 1.5 mm gingival to the restoration. Artificial crowns were cast in type III gold. Treatment groups were divided into 4 cement groups: dry and contaminated zinc phosphate cement and dry and contaminated resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The specimens were thermocycled and immersed in erythrosine B solution for 24 hours. Subsequently, they were rinsed, and their coronal portions were embedded in clear resin. Teeth were sectioned mesiodistally, and standard photomicrographs were made. The microleakage of each restoration and crown was measured. RESULTS: The least foundation microleakage was recorded for amalgam/dentinal bonding agents (ideal group) and composite/dentinal bonding agents (ideal group). The most microleakage was observed within the group without a foundation. In cement groups, the control and experiment sides were evaluated separately but displayed the same order of finding. The least leakage was recorded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (ideal group); the most microleakage was noted with zinc phosphate cement (ideal group). An interaction was demonstrated on the experimental side between cements and the foundations (P=.0001). CONCLUSION: Within the experimental conditions of this study, less microleakage was recorded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (ideal or contaminated) than with zinc phosphate cement (ideal or contaminated). There also was less microleakage evident with a foundation of silver amalgam or composite when a dentinal bonding agent was used under ideal conditions. SN - 0022-3913 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11264938/In_vitro_microleakage_of_luting_cements_and_crown_foundation_material_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-3913(01)17914-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -