Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 315–320 | Cite as

Marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate ceramic crowns cemented with three different resin cements

  • Ingrid PerozEmail author
  • Triantafyllos Mitsas
  • Kurt Erdelt
  • Niko Kopsahilis
Original Article
  • 214 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The cementation process and cementation materials have an influence on the marginal adaptation of restorations. The gap could be affected by thermal and mechanical loading (TCML). The computerized x-ray microtomography (μCT) method offers the possibility of measuring the marginal gap without destruction of the restoration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal gap (MG) and the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) before and after TCML.

Materials and methods

Thirty-nine human premolars were prepared for full ceramic crowns made of lithium disilicate. The crowns were cemented by three different resins—Panavia F 2.0, Variolink II, and Relyx Unicem. The MG and AMD were evaluated by μCT before and after TCML.

Results

Panavia F 2.0 had the lowest MG (before 118 μm–after TMCL 124 μm) and AMD (before 145 μm–after TMCL 154 μm), followed by Relyx Unicem (MG: before 164 μm–after TCML 155 μm; AMD: before 213 μm–after TMCL 209 μm) and Variolink II (MG: before 317 μm–after TMCL 320 μm; AMD: before 412 μm–after TMCL 406 μm). The differences were statistically significant before and after TCML. Rather than TCML, it appeared the resin cement was responsible for differences between the MG and AMD before and after TCML.

Conclusions

μCT is an accurate technique for assessing cemented restorations. Panavia F 2.0 has the lowest MG and AMD before and after TCML.

Clinical relevance

The resin material that features a three-step protocol (Variolink II) produced higher MG and AMG values than the Panavia or Relyx Unicem varieties with less or no intermediate steps at all.

Keywords

μCT Marginal gap Cementation Absolute marginal discrepancy Full ceramic In vitro 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the software producer, SOFD, who supported this study by developing the evaluation software for the μCT scans free of charge, and the dental laboratory, Ruebeling and Klar, which supported our work by fabricating the all-ceramic crowns for free.

Funding

Author Triantafyllos Mitsas was supported by the Research Community Dental e.V., Cologne.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Peumans M, Voet M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 17:739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA (2005) Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater 21:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Luthy H, Hammerle CH (2007) Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 20:383–388Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Luthy H, Gauckler LJ, Scharer P, Franz Hammerle CH (2006) Prospective clinical study of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. Quintessence Int 37:685–693Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valderhaug J, Heloe LA (1977) Oral hygiene in a group of supervised patients with fixed prostheses. J Periodontol 48(4):221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR (1986) A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent 56:416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH (2007) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rekow D, Thompson VP (2005) Near-surface damage—a persistent problem in crowns obtained by computer-aided design and manufacturing. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 219:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM (2013) Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont 22:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bjorn AL, Bjorn H, Grkovic B (1970) Marginal fit of restorations and its relation to periodontal bone level. II. Crowns. Odontol Revy 21:337–346Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christensen GJ (1966) Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 16:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH (2012) Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent 40:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLean JW (1972) Polycarboxylate cements. Five years’ experience in general practice. Br Dent J 132:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA (1971) The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 131:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samet N, Resheff B, Gelbard S, Stern N (1995) A CAD/CAM system for the production of metal copings for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 73:457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muller H, Olsson S, Soderholm KJ (1997) The effect of comonomer composition, silane heating, and filler type on aqueous TEGDMA leachability in model resin composites. Eur J Oral Sci 105:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K (2003) Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 16:244–248Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reich S, Uhlen S, Gozdowski S, Lohbauer U (2011) Measurement of cement thickness under lithium disilicate crowns using an impression material technique. Clin Oral Investig 15:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rinke S, Huls A, Jahn L (1995) Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of conventional and copy-milled all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 8:303–310Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borba M, Cesar PF, Griggs JA, Della Bona A (2011) Adaptation of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater 27:1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pelekanos S, Koumanou M, Koutayas SO, Zinelis S, Eliades G (2009) Micro-CT evaluation of the marginal fit of different In-Ceram alumina copings. Eur J Esthet Dent 4:278–292Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wakabayashi K, Sohmura T, Nakamura T, Kojima T, Kinuta S, Takahashi J, Yatani H (2005) New evaluation method by microfocus radiograph CT for 3D assessment of internal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns. Dent Mater J 24:362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seo D, Yi Y, Roh B (2009) The effect of preparation designs on the marginal and internal gaps in Cerec3 partial ceramic crowns. J Dent 37:374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krasanaki M, Pelekanos S, Andreiotelli M, Koutayas S, Eliades G (2012) X-ray microtomographic evaluation of the influence of two preparation types on marginal fit of CAD/CAM alumina copings: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 25:170–172Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rungruanganunt P, Kelly J, Adams D (2010) Two imaging techniques for 3D quantification of pre-cementation space for CAD/CAM crowns. J Dent 38:995–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Demir N, Ozturk A, Malkoc M (2014) Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent 8:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim J, Jeong J, Lee J, Cho H (2016) Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT. J Prosthet Dent 116:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosentritt M, Siavikis G, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Handel G (2008) Approach for valuating the significance of laboratory simulation. J Dent 36:1048–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stappert CF, Dai M, Chitmongkolsuk S, Gerds T, Strub JR (2004) Marginal adaptation of three-unit fixed partial dentures constructed from pressed ceramic systems. Br Dent J 196:766–770; discussion 760 quiz 780Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mously HA, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, Hirayama H (2014) Marginal and internal adaptation of ceramic crown restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM technology and the heat-press technique. J Prosthet Dent 112:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Groten M, Axmann D, Probster L, Weber H (2000) Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in-vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 83:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancope K, Davi LR, Mendonca G, Cooper LF, Soares CJ (2014) Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 112:1134–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mounajjed R, D ML , Azar B (2016) The marginal fit of E.max Press and E.max CAD lithium disilicate restorations: a critical review. Dent Mater J 35:835–844Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borges GA, Faria JS, Agarwal P, Spohr AM, Correr-Sobrinho L, Miranzi BA (2012) In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems before and after cementation. Oper Dent 37:641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cho L, Song H, Koak J, Heo S (2002) Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceromer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns: effect of variations in preparation design. J Prosthet Dent 88:388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Renne W, McGill ST, Forshee KV, DeFee MR, Mennito AS (2012) Predicting marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns based on the presence or absence of common preparation errors. J Prosthet Dent 108(5):310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Osman SA, McCabe JF, Walls AW (2006) Film thickness and rheological properties of luting agents for crown cementation. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 14:23–27Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    White SN, Ingles S, Kipnis V (1994) Influence of marginal opening on microleakage of cemented artificial crowns. J Prosthet Dent 71:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zogheib LV, Bona AD, Kimpara ET, McCabe JF (2011) Effect of hydrofluoric acid etching duration on the roughness and flexural strength of a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic. Braz Dent J 22:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alfaro DP, Ruse ND, Carvalho RM, Wyatt CC (2015) Assessment of the internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns using micro-CT. J Prosthodont 24:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdalla AI, Davidson CL (2000) Marginal integrity after fatigue loading of ceramic inlay restorations luted with three different cements. Am J Dent 13:77–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Craniomandibular DisordersCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Prodontos Dental clinicBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Craniomandibular DisordersCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of ProsthodonticsDental School of the Ludwig-Maximilians UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations