“Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Zirconia Crowns Cemented With Bioactive, Conventional Gic and Dual Cure Resin Luting Cements - An in Vitro Study”
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage in Zirconia crowns cemented with Bioactive, Conventional GIC, and Dual Cure Resin Luting Cements.
Materials and Methods: 45 Freshly extracted permanent molars were randomly equally divided. Group 1- Bioactive Cement, Group 2: Conventional GIC and Group 3: Dual Cure Resin Cement. Teeth were embedded in resin blocks 1 mm cervical to CEJ and prepared according to the standardized protocols, zirconia crowns were fabricated using CAD CAM technology and cemented onto the respective tooth preparations according to the manufactures instructions and excess cement was removed. After cementation all restored teeth were placed in buffered saline solution at 37 degrees centigrade for 1 day. Samples of each group were divided into 3 subgroups i.e. A, B and C, (5 samples each) and for aging subgroup B and C of all groups were placed in a thermocycler for 6000 and 10,000 cycles alternating between 5 degrees centigrade and 55 degrees centigrade to simulate aging at 6 months and 12 months respectively. All samples were painted with acrylic varnish to within 1 mm of crown margin and were placed in 2 % basic fuchsin dye solution. After 24 hrs. they were sectioned buccolingually, and were examined under a stereomicroscope at 30 X magnification for microleakage and scored.
Results: Based on results obtained by statistical analysis of the readings recorded from stereomicroscope for microleakage it was concluded that the microleakage score of group 1 samples was significantly less than that of samples in group 2 (p value-0.001*) and in group 3 (p value-0.007*). There was no significant difference in the microleakage score of groups 2 and 3 samples (p value-0.061).
Conclusions: The research revealed that the Bioactive luting agent exhibited lower microleakage than Conventional GIC, and Dual Cure Resin Luting Cement. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
References
2. Jacker Guhr S, Ibarra G, Oppermann LS, Lührs AK, Rahman A, Geurtsen W, et al. Evaluation of microleakage in Class V composite restorations using dye penetration and micro CT. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1709 18.
3. Fahim Vohra et al, Bond integrity and microleakage of dentin-bonded crowns cemented with bioactive cement in comparison to resin cements: in vitro study, Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials,2020, 1–8.
4. Lindquist and Connolly, In vitro microleakage of luting cements and crown foundation material, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, march 2001, volume 85 number 3.
5. Andrea Fabianelli, The relevance of micro-leakage studies, international dentistry sa vol. 9, NO. 3.
6. Komal Ladha and Mahesh Verma, Conventional and Contemporary Luting Cements: An Overview, J Indian Prosthodont Soc (Apr-June 2010) 10(2):79–88.
7. Yavuz I, Tumen EC, Kaya CA, Dogan MS, Gunay A, Unal M, et al. The reliability of microleakage studies using dog and bovine primary teeth instead of human primary teeth. Eur J Pediatric Dent 2013; 14:42 6.
8. EE Hill, J Lott, A clinically focused discussion of luting materials, Australian Dental Journal 2011; 56:(1 Suppl): 67–76.
9. Steven R. Jefferies et al, Preliminary Evidence That Bioactive Cements Occlude Artificial Marginal Gaps, J Esthet Restor Den, 2015 27:155–166.
10. Subramaniam P, Pandey A. Assessment of microleakage of a composite resin restoration in primary teeth following Class III cavity preparation using Er, Cr: YSGG laser: An in vitro study. J Lasers Med Sci 2016; 7:172 6.
11. Doerr CL, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. Effect of thermocycling on the microleakage of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 19-21.
12. Pameijer CH. A review of luting agents. Int J Dent 2012; 12: 32–37.
13. Naorungroj S, Wei HH, Arnold RR, et al. Antibacterial surface properties of fluoride-containing resin-based sealants. J Dent 2010; 38: 387–391.
14. Jefferies et al, Preliminary Evidence That Bioactive Cements Occlude Artificial Marginal Gaps, Journal of Esthetics and Restorative Dentistry, 2015 Vol 27 No 3, 155–166.
15. Fahad I Alkhudhairy and Zeeshan H Ahmad, Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study, The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, December 2016;17(12):997-1002.
