Microleakage and Marginal Gap of Adhesive Cements for Noble Alloy Full Cast Crowns

Abstract

Recently introduced self-adhesive resin cements showed an improved sealing ability for noble alloy full cast crowns compared with a resin-modified glass ionomer or dual-cured resin cement. SUMMARYVery limited comparative information about the microleakage in noble alloy full cast crowns luted with different types of adhesive resin cements is available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microleakage and marginal gap of two self-adhesive resin cements with that of other types of adhesive luting cements for noble alloy full cast crowns. Fifty noncarious human premolars and molars were prepared in a standardized manner for full cast crown restorations. Crowns were made from a noble alloy using a standardized technique and randomly cemented with five cementing agents as follows: 1) GC Fuji Plus resin-modified glass ionomer cement, 2) Panavia F 2.0 resin cement, 3) Multilink Sprint selfadhesive resin cement, 4), Rely X Unicem selfadhesive resin cement with pretreatment, and 5) Rely X Unicem with no pretreatment. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 378C for two weeks and then subjected to thermocycling. They were then placed in a silver nitrate solution, vertically cut in a mesiodistal direction and evaluated for microleakage and marginal gap using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn multiple range test at a p,0.05 level of significance. The Rely X Unicem (with or with no pretreatment) exhibited the smallest

Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dry and moist dentin

“…[4][5][6] However, little information is available about these chemical reactions, and the durability of this bonding requires further investigation, since clinicians have switched from conventional resin cement to these new self-adhesive resin cements. [7][8][9] Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.…”

Effect of various post materials and resin luting cements on microleakage in endodontically treated root canals

“…[29] The other vision for authors on adhesive bonding is selfadhesive resin luting cements which does not require detailed technical steps. Hooshmand et al [41] reported self-adhesive resin luting cements have better marginal microleakage results than conventional resin luting cements. Amaral et al [21] compared different adhesive systems used with glass fiber posts in root canals on the pullout strength.…”

“…For the cementation process of ZP, 1.4-mm ZP (Cosmopost, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) which was made from zirconium oxide ceramic and consisted of HFO 2 , Y 2 O 3 , and Al 2 O 3 were selected. Root canals were [33,34] and into root canals, and the posts were placed in the root canals. Smartcem 2 (Dentsply DeTrey, GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) is a self-adhesive resin cement which does not require any application step.…”

Effect of adhesive systems on microleakage in endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber posts

“…In a study of Kassem et al [34] Panavia F 2.0 showed less microleakage results than Rely X Unicem. In contrast to these studies, Hooshmand et al [36] evaluated microleakage values of noble alloy full cast crowns which were cemented with variable luting cements and they reported that Panavia F 2.0 showed higher microleakage results.…”

“…The root canals in group of PAN/ED were conditioned with Panavia 2.0 ED Primer II (Kuraray Co Ltd, Osaka, Japan) with microbrushes (White, 1.0 mm, Micro-brush Disposable Micro-Applicator; Microbrush, Grafton, Wis.) for 60 s [30,33,34]. Panavia F 2.0 resin cement was applied on the post surfaces[35,36] and into root canals, the posts were placed in the root canals. For the RU group, Rely X Unicem self adhesive resin cement directly applied to the post surfaces and placed into the root canals.…”