PURPOSE: This study's purpose was to compare the ability of 5 luting cements to reduce microleakage at stainless steel crown (SSC) margins on primary molar teeth. METHODS: Standard preparations were performed on 100 extracted primary molar teeth for SSC restoration. After fitting SSCs, samples were randomly divided into 5 groups of 20 teeth each, which were cemented with nonadhesive cement consisting of polycarboxylate (PC) or zinc phosphate (ZP), or with adhesive cement consisting of glass ionomer (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or RMGIC with a bonding agent (RMGIC+DBA). After aging and thermocycling, the specimens were placed in 1% methylene blue, sectioned, and evaluated under a digital microscope. The data were compared between groups with the t test, analysis of variance, and the least significant difference test. RESULTS:Microleakage with adhesive cements was significantly lower than with nonadhesive cements (P<.05). Differences between cements were statistically significant at P<.001. RMGIC+DBA showed the lowest microleakage, followed in increasing order by RMGIC, GIC, and ZP. The PC cement showed the greatest microleakage. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesive cements were more effective in reducing microleakage in stainless steel crowns than nonadhesive cements. Use of a bonding agent with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement yielded better results than using the latter alone.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study's purpose was to compare the ability of 5 luting cements to reduce microleakage at stainless steel crown (SSC) margins on primary molar teeth. METHODS: Standard preparations were performed on 100 extracted primary molar teeth for SSC restoration. After fitting SSCs, samples were randomly divided into 5 groups of 20 teeth each, which were cemented with nonadhesive cement consisting of polycarboxylate (PC) or zinc phosphate (ZP), or with adhesive cement consisting of glass ionomer (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or RMGIC with a bonding agent (RMGIC+DBA). After aging and thermocycling, the specimens were placed in 1% methylene blue, sectioned, and evaluated under a digital microscope. The data were compared between groups with the t test, analysis of variance, and the least significant difference test. RESULTS: Microleakage with adhesive cements was significantly lower than with nonadhesive cements (P<.05). Differences between cements were statistically significant at P<.001. RMGIC+DBA showed the lowest microleakage, followed in increasing order by RMGIC, GIC, and ZP. The PC cement showed the greatest microleakage. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesive cements were more effective in reducing microleakage in stainless steel crowns than nonadhesive cements. Use of a bonding agent with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement yielded better results than using the latter alone.
Authors: Marie-Laure Munoz-Sanchez; Natacha Linas; Nicolas Decerle; Valérie Collado; Denise Faulks; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin; Pierre-Yves Cousson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390