Partial ceramic crowns: influence of preparation design and luting material on internal adaptation.
The influence of three different cavity preparations on the marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns (PCC) luted with four different luting systems was investigated in this in vitro study. PCC preparations were performed in 144 extracted human molars using one of the following preparation designs (n=48/preparation): A--Coverage of functional cusps/butt joint preparation; B--horizontal reduction of functional cusps and C--complete reduction of functional cusps/butt joint preparation. Non-functional cusps were not covered; mesial and distal proximal boxes were extended 1 mm below the cemento-enamel-junction. PCC were fabricated from Vita Mark II ceramic (Vita) with a Cerec 3 Unit (Sirona) and adhesively luted to the cavities using the following luting systems: (VL) Variolink II/Excite (Vivadent), (PA) Panavia F/ED Primer (Kuraray), (DY) Dyract/Prime & Bond NT (DeTrey/Dentsply) and (FU) Fuji Plus/GC Cavity Conditioner (GC). Samples were simultaneously exposed to thermocycling and mechanical loading (TC: 5000x8-55 degrees C, 30 seconds/cycle; ML: 500000x72.5N, 1.6Hz). Marginal adaptation was assessed by evaluating dye penetration on multiple sections by relating the actual penetration distance to the maximal length of the corresponding cavity wall (100%). Ceramic- and tooth-luting material interfaces were evaluated separately. The data were statistically analyzed with the Mann Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon Rank Sumtest. In general, no significant differences could be found between preparations A, B and C. The combination of preparation C and luting material PA showed a tendency for the lowest dye penetration values, especially within dentin (30%). Significant differences could be determined between luting materials: Composite luting materials PA (0%) and VL (1%) revealed less dye penetration than the compomer DY (6%) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) FU (26%); use of RMGIC caused fractures of the restorations. The dentin/luting material interface showed the highest penetration values, ranging from 17% to 100%. In conclusion, with adhesively bonded partial ceramic crowns, the choice of luting material proved to be more relevant than preparation design under the limitations of this study. Margins below the cemento-enamel junction reveal significant loss of adhesion in spite of subsequent application of adhesive luting techniques. RMGIC cannot be recommended as a luting material for feldspathic PCC.
Federlin
Marianne
M
University of Regensburg Dental School, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Regensburg, Germany. Marianne.Federlin@klinik.uni-regensburg.de
Schmidt
Sebastian
S
Hiller
Karl-Anton
KA
Thonemann
Birger
B
Schmalz
Gottfried
G
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry; D004396:Coloring Agents; D020770:Compomers / Q000737:chemistry; D017076:Computer-Aided Design; D003442:Crowns; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000145:classification; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000737:chemistry; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D008963:Molar / Q000473:pathology; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D019237:Tooth Cervix / Q000473:pathology; D019228:Tooth Crown / Q000473:pathology; D019231:Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic / Q000379:methods*
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D004396:Coloring Agents; D020770:Compomers; D003738:Dental Cements; C088486:Dyract; C420130:Excite cement; C113301:FujiPlus; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008689:Methacrylates; C438843:Panavia-Fluoro; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C425843:Prime and Bond NT; D019279:Resin Cements; C082340:Vita Mark II; D003776:Dental Porcelain; C103502:Variolink; C006903:carbopol 940