Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns

Materials

Nicola Mobilio¹  Alberto Fasiol¹  Francesco Mollica²  Santo Catapano¹ 

[1] Dental Clinic, University of Ferrara, c.so Giovecca 203, 44121 Ferrara, Italy; E-Mails:;Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, v. Saragat 1, 44122 Ferrara, Italy; E-Mail:

关键词: crowns;    dental cement;    lithium disilicate crowns;    all-ceramics;   

DOI  :  10.3390/ma8041604

来源: mdpi

【 摘 要 】

No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were prepared. Anatomic crowns were waxed and hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. Teeth were divided into two groups (n = 10): (1) self-curing luting composite and (2) glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After cementation, the crowns were embedded in acrylic resin block with a screw base. Each specimen was pulled along the path of insertion in Universal Testing Machine. Failure load in Newtons (N) and failure mode were recorded for each specimen. Failure mode was classified as decementation or fracture. Failure load data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Failure modes were compared using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Mean failure load was 306.6(±193.8) N for composite group and 94.7(±48.2) N for GIC group (p = 0.004). Disilicate crown cemented with luting composite most often failed by fracture; otherwise, crown cemented with glass-ionomer cement most often failed by decementation (p = 0.02). Disilicate full crown cemented with luting composite showed higher failure load compared with conventional cementation with glass-ionomer cement.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.