The effect of recementation on crown retention.
OBJECTIVE
The object of this study was to evaluate retention of complete cast crowns cemented with different luting cements and to determine whether recemented castings are as retentive as when initially placed.


METHODS
Thirty standardized Rexillium III complete crowns were made on extracted human molar teeth prepared with a modified milling machine using conventional laboratory techniques. The crowns were randomly assigned into three groups according to the luting cement used: zinc phosphate (Fleck's, Mizzy), adhesive resin (Panavia-EX, J. Morita), and glassionomer (Ketac-Cem, Aplicap, ESPE-Premier Sales). Retention was evaluated by measuring the tensile force required to dislodge the crowns from tooth preparations with an Instron testing machine after thermocycling (1,500 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with 1-minute dwell times). Subsequently, the tooth preparations were scraped clean and polished with flour of pumice (prophylaxis paste), and the fitting surfaces of the artificial crowns were ultrasonically cleaned and air abraded using 50-micron aluminum oxide powder prior to recementation. Results were subjected to two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Studentized Range test.


RESULTS
The analysis showed the highest mean retention for cast crowns cemented with Panavia-EX cement (314 N), but the difference was not statistically significantly different from crowns cemented with glass-ionomer cement (307 N). However, crowns cemented with zinc phosphate cement (233 N) had significantly lower values (P < 0.05). Restorations recemented with zinc phosphate had significantly lower retention (190 N) than their initial cementation (P < 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Panavia-EX and glass-ionomer cements yielded the highest initial and recementation retentive strength, with values almost 32% higher than those obtained with zinc phosphate cement during the initial cementation and 59% higher than zinc phosphate for recementation. Zinc phosphate cement exhibited significantly lower retention for the initial and second trial of cementation.
Ayad
M F
MF
Section of Restorative Dentistry, Prosthodontics, and Endodontics, University of Tanta College of Dentistry, Egypt.
Rosenstiel
S F
SF
Woelfel
J B
JB
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods*; D003442:Crowns; D003738:Dental Cements; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008277:Magnesium Oxide; D008422:Materials Testing; D008963:Molar; D010710:Phosphates; D011076:Polycarboxylate Cement; D019279:Resin Cements; D013718:Tensile Strength; D015034:Zinc Oxide; D015036:Zinc Phosphate Cement
D003738:Dental Cements; C061504:Flecks; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D010710:Phosphates; D011076:Polycarboxylate Cement; D019279:Resin Cements; D008277:Magnesium Oxide; D015036:Zinc Phosphate Cement; C040235:Ketac-cem; C052304:Panavia EX; D015034:Zinc Oxide