Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study

BACKGROUND OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As, the longevity of provisional restorations is related to, a perfect adaptation and a strong, long-term union between restoration and teeth structures, therefore, evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional restorative materials luted with cements using the st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arora, Sheen Juneja, Arora, Aman, Upadhyaya, Viram, Jain, Shilpi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832796/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27134427
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.164911
_version_ 1782427282775736320
author Arora, Sheen Juneja
Arora, Aman
Upadhyaya, Viram
Jain, Shilpi
author_facet Arora, Sheen Juneja
Arora, Aman
Upadhyaya, Viram
Jain, Shilpi
author_sort Arora, Sheen Juneja
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As, the longevity of provisional restorations is related to, a perfect adaptation and a strong, long-term union between restoration and teeth structures, therefore, evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional restorative materials luted with cements using the standardized procedures is essential. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from Autopolymerizing acrylic resin crowns and bisphenol A-glycidyl dimethacrylate (BIS-GMA) resin crowns. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin crowns and BIS-GMA resin crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin (SC-10) crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from BIS-GMA resin crowns (Protemp 4) cemented with different temporary luting cements. METHODOLOGY: Freshly extracted 60 maxillary premolars of approximately similar dimensions were mounted in dental plaster. Tooth reduction with shoulder margin was planned to use a customized handpiece-holding jig. Provisional crowns were prepared using the wax pattern fabricated from computer aided designing/computer aided manufacturing milling machine following the tooth preparation. Sixty provisional crowns were made, thirty each of SC-10 and Protemp 4 and were then cemented with three different luting cements. Specimens were thermocycled, submerged in a 2% methylene blue solution, then sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for the evaluation of marginal microleakage. A five-level scale was used to score dye penetration in the tooth/cement interface and the results of this study was analyzed using the Chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U-test, Kruskal–Wallis H-test and the results were statistically significant P < 0.05 the power of study - 80%. RESULTS: Marginal leakage was significant in both provisional crowns cemented with three different luting cements along the axial walls of teeth (P < 0.05) confidence interval - 95%. CONCLUSION: The temporary cements with eugenol showed more microleakage than those without eugenol. SC-10 crowns showed more microleakage compared to Protemp 4 crowns. SC-10 crowns cemented with Kalzinol showed maximum microleakage and Protemp 4 crowns cemented with HY bond showed least microleakage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4832796
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48327962017-01-01 Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study Arora, Sheen Juneja Arora, Aman Upadhyaya, Viram Jain, Shilpi J Indian Prosthodont Soc Original Article BACKGROUND OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As, the longevity of provisional restorations is related to, a perfect adaptation and a strong, long-term union between restoration and teeth structures, therefore, evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional restorative materials luted with cements using the standardized procedures is essential. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from Autopolymerizing acrylic resin crowns and bisphenol A-glycidyl dimethacrylate (BIS-GMA) resin crowns. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin crowns and BIS-GMA resin crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin (SC-10) crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements. To compare the marginal leakage of the provisional crowns fabricated from BIS-GMA resin crowns (Protemp 4) cemented with different temporary luting cements. METHODOLOGY: Freshly extracted 60 maxillary premolars of approximately similar dimensions were mounted in dental plaster. Tooth reduction with shoulder margin was planned to use a customized handpiece-holding jig. Provisional crowns were prepared using the wax pattern fabricated from computer aided designing/computer aided manufacturing milling machine following the tooth preparation. Sixty provisional crowns were made, thirty each of SC-10 and Protemp 4 and were then cemented with three different luting cements. Specimens were thermocycled, submerged in a 2% methylene blue solution, then sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for the evaluation of marginal microleakage. A five-level scale was used to score dye penetration in the tooth/cement interface and the results of this study was analyzed using the Chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U-test, Kruskal–Wallis H-test and the results were statistically significant P < 0.05 the power of study - 80%. RESULTS: Marginal leakage was significant in both provisional crowns cemented with three different luting cements along the axial walls of teeth (P < 0.05) confidence interval - 95%. CONCLUSION: The temporary cements with eugenol showed more microleakage than those without eugenol. SC-10 crowns showed more microleakage compared to Protemp 4 crowns. SC-10 crowns cemented with Kalzinol showed maximum microleakage and Protemp 4 crowns cemented with HY bond showed least microleakage. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4832796/ /pubmed/27134427 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.164911 Text en Copyright: © The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Arora, Sheen Juneja
Arora, Aman
Upadhyaya, Viram
Jain, Shilpi
Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832796/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27134427
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.164911
work_keys_str_mv AT arorasheenjuneja comparativeevaluationofmarginalleakageofprovisionalcrownscementedwithdifferenttemporarylutingcementsinvitrostudy
AT aroraaman comparativeevaluationofmarginalleakageofprovisionalcrownscementedwithdifferenttemporarylutingcementsinvitrostudy
AT upadhyayaviram comparativeevaluationofmarginalleakageofprovisionalcrownscementedwithdifferenttemporarylutingcementsinvitrostudy
AT jainshilpi comparativeevaluationofmarginalleakageofprovisionalcrownscementedwithdifferenttemporarylutingcementsinvitrostudy