Jaime Yoshiaki Okuyama1, Rui Barbosa de Brito, Fabiana Mantovani Gomes França. 1. *Research Assistant, Department of Operative Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. †Professor, Department of Molecular Biology, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. ‡Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the tensile strength and marginal leakage of prefabricated abutments/copings, with or without surface sandblasting with aluminum oxide, luted with a calcium hydroxide-based temporary cement (CH, Dycal; Dentsply, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) or a noneugenol zinc oxide cement (ZO, Temp Bond NE; Kerr, Orange, CA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 CeraOne abutment analogs and respective copings were divided into 6 groups (n = 8) according to the component that was sandblasted: the coping only, coping + abutment or no sandblasting and the temporary cement used: CH or ZO. After cementation, the samples underwent 500 thermal cycles (5°C ± 2°C and 55°C ± 2°C) and were subsequently immersed in an aqueous solution of 0.5% basic fuchsine dye for 24 hours. Next, the tensile test was performed, and microleakage was assessed qualitatively. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: CH cement showed a tensile strength (245.6 N) significantly higher than that of the ZO (18.1 N). Sandblasting both abutment and coping increased tensile strength by 1.7 times. Marginal leakage was not influenced by sandblasting; however, CH presented less microleakage. CONCLUSION: Aluminum oxide sandblasting of the coping and abutment favored the tensile strength of temporary cements and the CH showed a higher tensile strength and less microleakage than did the ZO cement.
PURPOSE: To compare the tensile strength and marginal leakage of prefabricated abutments/copings, with or without surface sandblasting with aluminum oxide, luted with a calcium hydroxide-based temporary cement (CH, Dycal; Dentsply, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) or a noneugenol zinc oxide cement (ZO, Temp Bond NE; Kerr, Orange, CA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 CeraOne abutment analogs and respective copings were divided into 6 groups (n = 8) according to the component that was sandblasted: the coping only, coping + abutment or no sandblasting and the temporary cement used: CH or ZO. After cementation, the samples underwent 500 thermal cycles (5°C ± 2°C and 55°C ± 2°C) and were subsequently immersed in an aqueous solution of 0.5% basic fuchsine dye for 24 hours. Next, the tensile test was performed, and microleakage was assessed qualitatively. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: CH cement showed a tensile strength (245.6 N) significantly higher than that of the ZO (18.1 N). Sandblasting both abutment and coping increased tensile strength by 1.7 times. Marginal leakage was not influenced by sandblasting; however, CH presented less microleakage. CONCLUSION:Aluminum oxide sandblasting of the coping and abutment favored the tensile strength of temporary cements and the CH showed a higher tensile strength and less microleakage than did the ZO cement.