Cargando…

Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns

No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mobilio, Nicola, Fasiol, Alberto, Mollica, Francesco, Catapano, Santo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28788020
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8041604
_version_ 1783249676312510464
author Mobilio, Nicola
Fasiol, Alberto
Mollica, Francesco
Catapano, Santo
author_facet Mobilio, Nicola
Fasiol, Alberto
Mollica, Francesco
Catapano, Santo
author_sort Mobilio, Nicola
collection PubMed
description No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were prepared. Anatomic crowns were waxed and hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. Teeth were divided into two groups (n = 10): (1) self-curing luting composite and (2) glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After cementation, the crowns were embedded in acrylic resin block with a screw base. Each specimen was pulled along the path of insertion in Universal Testing Machine. Failure load in Newtons (N) and failure mode were recorded for each specimen. Failure mode was classified as decementation or fracture. Failure load data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Failure modes were compared using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Mean failure load was 306.6(±193.8) N for composite group and 94.7(±48.2) N for GIC group (p = 0.004). Disilicate crown cemented with luting composite most often failed by fracture; otherwise, crown cemented with glass-ionomer cement most often failed by decementation (p = 0.02). Disilicate full crown cemented with luting composite showed higher failure load compared with conventional cementation with glass-ionomer cement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5507031
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55070312017-07-28 Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns Mobilio, Nicola Fasiol, Alberto Mollica, Francesco Catapano, Santo Materials (Basel) Article No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were prepared. Anatomic crowns were waxed and hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. Teeth were divided into two groups (n = 10): (1) self-curing luting composite and (2) glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After cementation, the crowns were embedded in acrylic resin block with a screw base. Each specimen was pulled along the path of insertion in Universal Testing Machine. Failure load in Newtons (N) and failure mode were recorded for each specimen. Failure mode was classified as decementation or fracture. Failure load data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Failure modes were compared using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Mean failure load was 306.6(±193.8) N for composite group and 94.7(±48.2) N for GIC group (p = 0.004). Disilicate crown cemented with luting composite most often failed by fracture; otherwise, crown cemented with glass-ionomer cement most often failed by decementation (p = 0.02). Disilicate full crown cemented with luting composite showed higher failure load compared with conventional cementation with glass-ionomer cement. MDPI 2015-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5507031/ /pubmed/28788020 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8041604 Text en © 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mobilio, Nicola
Fasiol, Alberto
Mollica, Francesco
Catapano, Santo
Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title_full Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title_fullStr Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title_full_unstemmed Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title_short Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns
title_sort effect of different luting agents on the retention of lithium disilicate ceramic crowns
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28788020
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8041604
work_keys_str_mv AT mobilionicola effectofdifferentlutingagentsontheretentionoflithiumdisilicateceramiccrowns
AT fasiolalberto effectofdifferentlutingagentsontheretentionoflithiumdisilicateceramiccrowns
AT mollicafrancesco effectofdifferentlutingagentsontheretentionoflithiumdisilicateceramiccrowns
AT catapanosanto effectofdifferentlutingagentsontheretentionoflithiumdisilicateceramiccrowns