medigraphic.com
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2011, Number 2

Rev Odont Mex 2011; 15 (2)

Marginal adaptation and microleakage comparison between two zirconia oxide systems with the same cement

Juárez GA, Barceló SF, Ríos SE

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 103-108
PDF size: 312.78 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose: Compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage between LavaTM and Zirkon zahn® with one cement. Material and methods: Twenty superior extracted premolars were divided into two groups. Teeth in group one were prepared to receive LavaTM copings and the other group for Zirkon zahn®. They were made following standard techniques of each system. The marginal fit in µm was measured in eight zones before and after cementation with RelyXTMU100. After thermocycling, specimens were placed in fuchsin dye solution 2% and sectioned buccolingually to measure microleakage in µm in buccal and lingual section. Results: There was statistically significant difference in the marginal adaptation between the two zirconia systems. The system that reported the best marginal adaptation was LavaTM 19.7 µm and 15 µm before and after cementation. The system with the worst marginal adaptation was Zirkon zahn® with 28.1 µm and 22.8 µm before and after cementation. There was no significant difference in microleakage, the average for LavaTM was 314.2 µm and Zirkon zahn® 319.8 µm. Conclusion: The system that reported the best marginal adaptation, with a statistically significant difference was LavaTM, so the system with the worst marginal adaptation was Zirkon zahn®. There was no significantly difference in microleakage between these two systems.


REFERENCES

  1. Suárez M, González P, Pradíes G, Lozano J. Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera AllCeram Crowns with two finish lines. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 229-232.

  2. Nakaruma T, Dei N, Kojima T. Marginal and internal fit of cercec 3 CAD/CAM All – Ceramic Crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 244-248.

  3. Technical Product Profile. Lava™, Precision Solutions, 3M ESPE, 48 pp.

  4. Bindl A, Mormann WHM. Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. J Oral Rehabilitation 2005; 32: 441-447.

  5. Steger E. Zirkon zahn para el procesamiento de piezas en verde de material para armazones de dióxido de zirconio. Quintessence técnica (ed. Esp.) 2006; 17: 25-34.

  6. www.zirkonzhan.com. Visitada el 09 y 10 de enero del 2009.

  7. Weaver J, Johnson G, Bales D. Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66: 747-53.

  8. Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 92.

  9. Wolfart S, Martin S, Kern M. Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of a new experimental all – ceramic system before and after cementation. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 6: 587-592.

  10. Francine E, Omar M. Marginal adaptation and microleakage af Procera All Ceram crowns with four cements. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 529-535.

  11. ISO 4049: 2000 (E), pp 1-5.

  12. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 405-408.

  13. Groten M, Axmann D, Probster L, Weber H. Determination of the minimum number of marginal gap measurements required for practical in vitro testing. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 40-9.

  14. In-Sung Yeo, Jae-Ho Yang. In vitro marginal fit of three all ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 405-408.

  15. Coli P, Karlsson. Precision of a CAD/CAM technique for the production of zirconium dioxide copings. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 577-580

  16. May KB, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Precision of fit: the Procera AllCeram crown. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 394-404.

  17. Shirley H, Hung M, Kuen-Shan H, Eick D, Chappell R. Marginal fit of porcelain-fused-to-metal and two types of ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63: 26-31.

  18. Matty F, Tjan A, Fox W. Comparison of the marginal fit of various ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 527-31.

  19. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer H. Determining the marginal fit of CAD/CAM bridge frameworks, Pan European Federation Conference (PEF; CED) #0254, 2006.

  20. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen J. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. September 2008.

  21. Shanon A, Qian F, Gratton D. In-vitro marginal gap comparison of CAD/CAM zirconium copings, IADR #0828, 2007.

  22. Hertlein G, Franfe R, Wastian C, Watzek K. Marginal fit of zirconia restorations with three/four abutment teeth, 3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany.

  23. Ibarra G, Johnson G, Geurtsen W, Vargas M. Microleakage of porcelain veneer restorations bonded to enamel and dentin with a new self-adhesive resin-based dental cement. Dental Materials 2007; 23: 218-225.

  24. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Grôger G, Handel G. Marginal adaptation of CAD – CAM ZrO2 ceramic with different cements, department of prosthetic dentistry, University of Regensburg, Germany.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com