Literature DB >> 15309565

Partial ceramic crowns. Influence of preparation design and luting material on margin integrity--a scanning electron microscopic study.

Marianne Federlin1, C Sipos, K-A Hiller, B Thonemann, G Schmalz.   

Abstract

This in vitro study examines the effects of three preparation designs and different luting agents on the marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns. One hundred forty-four extracted human molars were prepared according to the following preparation designs: A. Coverage of functional cusps, B. Horizontal reduction of functional cusps and C. Complete reduction of functional cusps. Partial ceramic crowns (Vita Mark II, Cerec 3 System) were bonded to the cavities with: Variolink II/Excite (Vivadent), Panavia F/ED primer (Kuraray), Dyract/Prime and Bond NT (Detrey/Dentsply), and Fuji Plus/GC cavity conditioner (GC). The specimens were exposed to thermocycling and mechanical loading. Marginal adaptation was assessed on replicas using quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Significant differences were observed between the preparation designs in general. Coverage of functional cusps with preparation of butt joints and use of Variolink as luting material showed a tendency toward the lowest values for compromised adhesion, especially within the dentin. Significant differences could be determined between luting systems: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) caused fracture of the restorations and revealed higher values than all other luting materials for compromised adhesion at ceramic-luting agent and tooth-luting agent interfaces. The dentin-luting material interface, in general, showed higher percentages of compromised adhesion (38-100%) than enamel- and ceramic-luting material interfaces (0-30%). In conclusion, the SEM data indicate that, with adhesively bonded partial ceramic crowns, retentive preparation is not contraindicated and the choice of luting material is more relevant than the preparation design. Margins below the cemento-enamel junction reveal significant loss of adhesion in spite of adhesive luting techniques. The RMGIC cannot be recommended as a luting material for feldspathic partial ceramic crowns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15309565     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-004-0276-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  27 in total

1.  Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.

Authors:  R Frankenberger; A Petschelt; N Krämer
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.440

2.  Restorations with extensive dentin/enamel-bonded ceramic coverage. A 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  J W van Dijken; L Hasselrot; A Ormin; A L Olofsson
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.612

3.  In vitro study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load of all-ceramic crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and other luting agents.

Authors:  C Leevailoj; J A Platt; M A Cochran; B K Moore
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.426

4.  Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam--results up to 6 years.

Authors:  J F Roulet
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Clinical evaluation of heat-pressed glass-ceramic inlays in vivo: 2-year results.

Authors:  B Thonemann; M Federlin; G Schmalz; A Schams
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Clinical and quantitative marginal analysis of feldspathic ceramic inlays at 4 years.

Authors:  K H Friedl; K A Hiller; G Schmalz; B Bey
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  The influence of water sorption on the development of setting shrinkage stress in traditional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.

Authors:  A J Feilzer; A I Kakaboura; A J de Gee; C L Davidson
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 5.304

8.  Clinical performance of pressed ceramic inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer and autopolymerizing resin composite cements.

Authors:  J W van Dijken; A Ormin; A L Olofsson
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.426

9.  A 2-year clinical follow-up study of IPS Empress ceramic inlays.

Authors:  P Tidehag; J Gunne
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.681

10.  Relative fracture toughness and hardness of new dental ceramics.

Authors:  R R Seghi; I L Denry; S F Rosenstiel
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  10 in total

1.  Influence of type of luting cement used with all-ceramic crowns on load capability of post-restored endodontically treated maxillary central incisors.

Authors:  Anja Preuss; Martin Rosentritt; Roland Frankenberger; Florian Beuer; Michael Naumann
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Influence of different cusp coverage methods for the extension of ceramic inlays on marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro.

Authors:  Stephanie Krifka; Martin Stangl; Sarah Wiesbauer; Karl-Anton Hiller; Gottfried Schmalz; Marianne Federlin
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of class II CAD/CAM ceramic restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments.

Authors:  María José Sandoval; Giovanni Tommaso Rocca; Ivo Krejci; Michael Mandikos; Didier Dietschi
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Effect of selective enamel etching on clinical performance of CAD/CAM partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement.

Authors:  Marianne Federlin; Karl-Anton Hiller; Gottfried Schmalz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical split-mouth evaluation of partial ceramic crowns luted with a new, universal adhesive system/resin cement: results after 18 months.

Authors:  Vanessa Vogl; Karl-Anton Hiller; Wolfgang Buchalla; Marianne Federlin; Gottfried Schmalz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Controlled, prospective, randomized, clinical evaluation of partial ceramic crowns inserted with RelyX Unicem with or without selective enamel etching. Results after 2 years.

Authors:  Frederike Schenke; Marianne Federlin; Karl-Anton Hiller; Daniel Moder; Gottfried Schmalz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns.

Authors:  M Federlin; J Wagner; T Männer; K-A Hiller; G Schmalz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Marginal and internal fit of heat pressed versus CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic onlays after exposure to thermo-mechanical fatigue.

Authors:  Petra C Guess; Thaleia Vagkopoulou; Yu Zhang; Martin Wolkewitz; Joerg R Strub
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  A comprehensive in vitro study on the performance of two different strategies to simplify adhesive bonding.

Authors:  Nadja Rohr; Sabrina Märtin; Nicola U Zitzmann; Jens Fischer
Journal:  J Esthet Restor Dent       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 3.040

10.  Tooth surface treatment strategies for adhesive cementation.

Authors:  Nadja Rohr; Jens Fischer
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 1.904

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.