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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |