Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 387–392 | Cite as

In vitro comparison of microleakge between preformed metal crowns and aesthetic crowns of primary molars using different adhesive luting cements

  • S. N. Al-Haj AliEmail author
  • R. I. Farah
Original Scientific Article
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To assess and compare the microleakage extent between preformed metal crowns (PMCs), preveneered PMCs and zirconia crowns using different adhesive luting cements.

Methods

Thirty-six primary first molars were divided into three groups (n = 12) each prepared to receive different crowns (PMCs, preveneered PMCs, or zirconia crowns). Each group was further sub-grouped (n = 4) according to the luting cement (resin cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, or glass ionomer cement). After cementation, the teeth were thermocycled, placed in 0.5% basic fuchsin, and sectioned to assess dye penetration. The results were analysed using ANOVA and Bonferroni statistical tests. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The microleakage recorded in zirconia crowns was significantly worse than that in preveneered PMCs and PMCs (p < 0.001). Regardless of the crown type, resin cement resulted in the least microleakage with statistically significant differences from glass ionomer cement (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

As far as microleakage is concerned, preveneered PMCs seem to be an aesthetic and suitable alternative to PMCs. In addition, resin cement stands to be the most optimum luting cement.

Keywords

Esthetic crowns Luting cements Microleakage Preformed metal crowns Primary molars Zirconia crowns 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Qassim University, represented by the Deanship of Scientific Research, on the material support for this research under the Number “Dent-2016-1-12-s-1504” during the academic year 2016.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Martin J, Lang B. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths of resin to densely-sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic after long-term storage and thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:356–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical relevance of laboratory fatigue studies. J Dent. 1994;22(2):97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen L, Suh BI. Bonding of resin materials to all-ceramics: a review. Curr Res Dent. 2012;3:7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erdemci ZY, Cehreli SB, Tirali RE. Hall versus conventional stainless steel crown techniques: in vitro investigation of marginal fit and microleakage using three different luting agents. Pediatr Dent. 2011;36(4):286–90.Google Scholar
  5. Ettinger RL, Kambhu PP, Asmussen CM, Damiano PC. An in vitro evaluation of the integrity of stainless steel crown margins cemented with differentluting agents. Spec Care Dent. 1998;18(2):78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Innes NPT, Ricketts D, Chong LY et al. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12:CD005512.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA, British Society of Pediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Pediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;1:20–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kratunova E, O’Connell AC. A randomized clinical trial investigating the performance of two commercially available posterior pediatric preveneered stainless steel crowns: a continuation study. Pediatr Dent. 2014;36:494–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Leith R, O’Connell AC. A clinical study evaluating success of 2 commercially available preveneered primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33:300–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ludwig KH, Fontana M, Vinson LA, Platt JA, Dean JA. The success of stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall technique: a retrospective study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(12):1248–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Memarpour M, Mesbahi M, Rezvani G, Rahimi M. Microleakage of adhesive and nonadhesive luting cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33(7):501–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mjör IA. Dentin permeability: the basis for understanding pulp reactions and adhesive technology. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(1):3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Noda Y, Nakajima M, Takahashi M, et al. The effect of five kinds of surface treatment agents on the bond strength to various ceramics with thermocycle aging. Dent Mater J. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pashley DH. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod. 1990;16(2):70–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater J. 2005;21(5):445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raskin A, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Déjou J. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(4):295–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruyter EI, Vajeeston N, Knarvang T, Kvam K. A novel etching technique for surface treatment of zirconia ceramics to improve adhesion of resin-based luting cements. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2017;3(1):36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sener I, Turker B, Valandro LF, Ozcan M. Marginal gap, cement thickness, and microleakage of 2 zirconia crown systems luted with glass ionomer and MDP-based cements. Gen Dent. 2014:67–70.Google Scholar
  19. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, et al. Microleakage of stainless steel crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33:525–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiflett K, White SN. Microleakage of cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19(4):262–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanaka T, Kamada K, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. A comparison of water temperatures for thermocycling of metal-bonded resin specimens. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74(4):345–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent. 1992;20(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uo M, Sjgren G, Sundh A et al. Cytotoxicity and bonding property of dental ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2003;19:487–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uo M, Sjögren G, Sundh A et al. Effect of surface condition of dental zirconia ceramic (Denzir) on bonding. Dent Mater J. 2006;25(3):626–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):511–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yilmaz Y, Dalmis A, Gurbuz T, Simsek S. Retentive force and microleakage of stainless steel crowns cemented with three different luting agents. Dent Mater J. 2004;23(4):577–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T, Eyuboglu O, Belduz N. The repair of preveneered posterior stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(5):429–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, College of DentistryQassim UniversityQassimKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of DentistryQassim UniversityQassimKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations