PURPOSEThis in vitro study evaluated the effects of four different cements on the color attributes of a zirconia ceramic.MATERIALS AND METHODS40 zirconia ceramic disk specimens (0.5 mm thickness, 10 mm diameter, 0.1 mm cement space) were fabricated by a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing system. The specimens were divided into 4 groups of 10 specimens and cemented to composite substrates using four different cements including: Glass Ionomer, Panavia F2.0, Zinc Phosphate, and TempBond. The L*, a*, and b* color attributes of the specimens were measured before and after cementation by a spectrophotometer. Additionally, ΔE values were measured to determine color changes for the groups and then compared with the perceptional threshold of ΔE = 3.3. Repeated Measures ANOVA, Tukey Post Hoc, Bonferroni, One-way ANOVA, and One-sample t-test tests were used to analyze the data. All tests were carried out at the 0.05 level of significance.RESULTSStatistically significant differences were detected in the ΔE values for Zinc Phosphate (P<.0001) and TempBond (P<.0001) groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences in this respect for Glass Ionomer (P=.99) and Panavia F2.0 (P=1) groups. The means and standard deviations of the ΔE values for Glass Ionomer, Panavia F2.0, Zinc Phosphate, and Tempbond groups were 2.11±0.66, 0.94±0.39, 5.77±0.83, and 7.50±1.16 Unit, respectively.CONCLUSIONWithin the limitations of this study, it was concluded that Zinc Phosphate and Tempbond cements affected the color attributes of the tested zirconia ceramic beyond the perceptional threshold. However, Glass Ionomer and Panavia F2.0 cements created acceptable color changes.
Background. Fracture load of implant-supported restorations is an important factor in clinical success. This study evaluated the effect of two techniques for screw access hole preparation on the fracture load of cement-screw-retained implant-supported zirconia-based crowns.Methods. Thirty similar cement-screw-retained implant-supported zirconia-based maxillary central incisor crowns were evaluated in three groups of 10. Group NH: with no screw access holes for the control; Group HBS: with screw access holes prepared with a machine before zirconia sintering; Group HAS: with screw access holes prepared manually after zirconia sintering. In group HBS, the access holes were virtually designed and prepared by a computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing system. In group HAS, the access holes were manually prepared after zirconia sintering using a diamond bur. The dimensions of the screw access holes were equal in both groups. The crowns were cemented onto same-size abutments and were then subjected to thermocycling. The fracture load values of the crowns were measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test (P < 0.05).Results. The mean fracture load value for the group NH was 888.37 ± 228.92 N, which was the highest among the groups, with a significant difference (P < 0.0001). The fracture load values were 610.48 ± 125.02 N and 496.74 ± 104.10 Nin the HBS and HAS groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P = 0.44).Conclusion. Both techniques used for preparation of screw access holes in implant-supported zirconia-based crowns decreased the fracture load.
To achieve the target color with zirconia-based restorations, regardless of the backgrounds tested, the minimum thickness of zirconia coping should be 0.6 mm, and the minimum thickness of veneering ceramic should be 1.2 mm.
Objective To evaluate the effect of screw access hole design on the fracture resistance of cement‐retained implant‐supported zirconia‐based restorations with screw access holes. Materials and Methods Thirty cement‐retained implant‐supported zirconia‐based molar crown specimens were fabricated. The specimens were divided into 3 groups of 10: without access holes (C), with screw access holes (S), and with screw access holes accompanied with a surrounding zirconia wall (W). The veneering ceramic thickness was 0.8 mm in all groups. Implants were vertically mounted in a metal block. Abutments were screwed on the implants and the specimens were cemented to the abutments. A universal testing machine applied compressive forces to the specimens until fracture. Fracture resistance values of the specimens were measured. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests were used to analyze data (P < .05). Results The mean fracture resistance values were 5794.85 N for C, 2691.48 N for S, and 3878.06 N for W. The screw access hole design significantly affected the fracture resistance (P < .0001). Significant differences were found between C and S (P < .001), C and W (P < .001), and S and W (P = .026). Conclusions The screw access hole decreased the fracture resistance. A surrounding zirconia wall for the screw access hole increased the fracture resistance. Clinical Significance Screw access hole design may affect the fracture resistance of cement‐retained implant‐supported zirconia‐based restorations with screw access holes. This study introduced a screw access hole design to improve the fracture resistance of these restorations.
Background:Fixed prosthodontics is a routine dental treatment and microleakage is a major cause of its failure.Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess the marginal microleakage of four cements in metal ceramic restorations with adapted and open margins.Materials and Methods:Sixty sound human premolars were selected for this experimental study performed in Tehran, Iran and prepared for full-crown restorations. Wax patterns were formed leaving a 300 µm gap on one of the proximal margins. The crowns were cast and the samples were randomly divided into four groups based on the cement used. Copings were cemented using zinc phosphate cement (Fleck), Fuji Plus resin-modified glass ionomer, Panavia F2.0 resin cement, or G-Cem resin cement, according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution. After 24 hours, dye penetration was assessed under a stereomicroscope and analyzed using the respective software. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, paired t-tests, and Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests.Results:The least microleakage occurred in the Panavia F2.0 group (closed margin, 0.18 mm; open margin, 0.64 mm) and the maximum was observed in the Fleck group (closed margin, 1.92 mm; open margin, 3.32 mm). The Fleck group displayed significantly more microleakage compared to the Fuji Plus and Panavia F2.0 groups (P < 0.001) in both closed and open margins. In open margins, differences in microleakage between the Fuji Plus and G-Cem as well as between the G-Cem and Panavia F2.0 groups were significant (P < 0.001). In closed margins, only the G-Cem group displayed significantly more microleakage as compared to the Panavia F2.0 group (P < 0.05). Paired t-test results showed significantly more microleakage in open margins compared to closed margins, except in the Fuji Plus group (P = 0.539).Conclusions:Fuji Plus cement exhibited better sealing ability in closed and open margins compared to G-Cem and Fleck cements. When using G-Cem and Fleck cements for full metal ceramic restorations, clinicians should try to minimize marginal gaps in order to reduce restoration failure. In situations where there are doubts about perfect marginal adaptation, the use of Fuji Plus cement may be helpful.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.