Marginal Adaptation and Quality of Interfaces in Lithium Disilicate Crowns — Influence of Manufacturing and Cementation Techniques

Abstract

Milled restorations cemented with self-adhesive resin cement resulted in a thinner cement line that is statistically different from that of CAD or pressed ceramics cemented with resin cement with adhesive application. No difference between one-second tack-cure and self-activation was noted.

The impact of restorative material and ceramic thickness on CAD\CAM endocrowns

“…Dental ceramics must have characteristics that allow them to survive successfully and work in the oral cavity (1). With the development of computer assisted design and manufacturing technology (CAD/CAM), ceramic dental systems have shown esthetic evolution and acceptable adaptation (2). However, some clinical failures in the posterior region are still commonly reported (1,3,4).…”

Role of adhesive systems on the luting interface’s thickness of ceramic laminate veneers

“…The adhesive interface consists of a luting line between the ceramic substrate and the dental surface, and the vertical thickness of this interface becomes a determining factor in establishing favorable characteristics of marginal adaptation. 36,37 A thicker luting interface exposed to the oral environment may facilitate bacterial adhesion and result in gingival inflammation, periodontal disease, and marginal staining, among other complications. 36,37 From Table 2, it can be seen that the groups with no prior dental adhesive photoactivation exhibited lower adhesive interface thickness than those groups subjected to previous adhesive activation on the dental enamel and inside the ceramic laminate (Table 2).…”

“…36,37 A thicker luting interface exposed to the oral environment may facilitate bacterial adhesion and result in gingival inflammation, periodontal disease, and marginal staining, among other complications. 36,37 From Table 2, it can be seen that the groups with no prior dental adhesive photoactivation exhibited lower adhesive interface thickness than those groups subjected to previous adhesive activation on the dental enamel and inside the ceramic laminate (Table 2). It is speculated that this result was due to the mixing of previously non-polymerized monomers of the dental adhesive with fillers and monomers from the light-activated resin cement, 2,3,38,39 which resulted in a thin adhesive interface between the ceramic and enamel substrate ( Figure A and D).…”

“…This could damage the chemical, physical, and mechanical properties of the luting agents, 22 besides reducing the adhesive interface fracture strength of the ceramic restorations. 24 According to Melo Freire et al, 37 the adhesive interface of indirect restorations can be considered acceptable when it presents luting interface thickness values of approximately 120 μm and when the interface quality presents a uniform aspect with no crack or irregularities presence. 37 According to these requirements, the groups with no prior photoactivation of dental adhesives are within clinically acceptable limits.…”

“…24 According to Melo Freire et al, 37 the adhesive interface of indirect restorations can be considered acceptable when it presents luting interface thickness values of approximately 120 μm and when the interface quality presents a uniform aspect with no crack or irregularities presence. 37 According to these requirements, the groups with no prior photoactivation of dental adhesives are within clinically acceptable limits. 37 The thickness of the adhesive interface could vary according to the specific properties of the resin luting materials.…”