PURPOSE: This study's purposes were to determine the shear bond strength (SBS) for and to perform dye penetration (microleakage) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluations of preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns (SSCs) that were repaired using 2 different materials. METHODS: Twenty-two crowns were used. They were stored in artificial saliva for 30 days and then thermocycled. A force was applied on the crowns' occlusal surfaces until the original veneer material appeared to be fractured. The fracture types and S8S values were recorded. The crowns were then repaired using Panavia opaque cement and Tetric Flow or Monoopaque and Tetric Flow. Twenty of the repaired crowns were subjected to dye penetration and SBS tests, and the remaining 2 were evaluated using SEM. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the results of either the S8S or the dye penetration test (P = .58 and P = 38, respectively). A statistically significant difference was found between original and repaired crowns regarding fracture extent (P = .02), but not failure type (P = .08). SEM evaluation showed that there was no observable gap at the interface of the original or repaired materials and the stainless steel base. CONCLUSION: Preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns may be repaired using either repair material types tested here.
PURPOSE: This study's purposes were to determine the shear bond strength (SBS) for and to perform dye penetration (microleakage) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluations of preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns (SSCs) that were repaired using 2 different materials. METHODS: Twenty-two crowns were used. They were stored in artificial saliva for 30 days and then thermocycled. A force was applied on the crowns' occlusal surfaces until the original veneer material appeared to be fractured. The fracture types and S8S values were recorded. The crowns were then repaired using Panavia opaque cement and Tetric Flow or Monoopaque and Tetric Flow. Twenty of the repaired crowns were subjected to dye penetration and SBS tests, and the remaining 2 were evaluated using SEM. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the results of either the S8S or the dye penetration test (P = .58 and P = 38, respectively). A statistically significant difference was found between original and repaired crowns regarding fracture extent (P = .02), but not failure type (P = .08). SEM evaluation showed that there was no observable gap at the interface of the original or repaired materials and the stainless steel base. CONCLUSION: Preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns may be repaired using either repair material types tested here.