PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12877431

Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites.

Koji Iida·Shigehisa Inokoshi·Norimasa Kurosaki
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study compared the interfacial integrity of Class II ceramic inlay restorations and direct resin composite restorations. The influence of a flowable resin composite liner was also evaluated. Class II DO cavities were prepared in 40 recently extracted mandibular molars and assigned to four treatment groups. Group A: direct composite restoration; Group B: Cerec inlays fabricated and cemented with a resin cement; Group C: adhesive lining with a flowable resin composite used prior to resin composite restoration; Group D: lining with a flowable resin composite prior to cementation of Cerec inlays. After finishing, polishing and thermocycling (4 degrees C and 60 degrees C x 500), the samples were cross-sectioned in a mesio-distal direction along the center of the fillings or inlays. The cross-sectioned surface was polished, and the adhesive interfaces between resin and enamel or dentin were observed under a scanning laser measurement microscope. Ceramic inlay restorations showed no interfacial gaps in enamel, but direct resin composite restorations showed a significantly higher incidence of gaps at the interface or cracks in the interfacial enamel (p=0.0002). No differences were found in the resin-dentin interfaces for both the inlay and direct resin composite restorations. The use of a flowable resin composite as an adhesive liner produced a significantly greater gap-free resin-dentin interface in Cerec inlay and direct resin composite restorations (p=0.0233 & 0.0009), but it did not reduce gap formation at the resin-enamel interface.

Explore related subjects

CementationCeramicsComposite ResinsDental Cavity LiningDental Cavity PreparationDental LeakageDental Marginal AdaptationDental PorcelainDental Restoration, PermanentHumansInlaysMethacrylatesResin CementsStatistics, NonparametricComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Koji Iida, Shigehisa Inokoshi, Norimasa Kurosaki. Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12877431/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Cementable implant crowns composed of cast superstructure frameworks luted to electroformed primary copings: an in vitro retention study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate, on ITI solid abutments, the retention values of single crowns fabricated using an alternative prosthetic solution: secondary cast superstructure luted to an electroformed primary coping. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty standard 4.1 mm ITI implants and 5.5 mm high ITI machined abutments were assembled and mounted in acrylic resin. Implant/abutment assemblies were randomly divided into two groups. In the test group, primary galvanic caps were directly fabricated on implant abutments (A.G.C. Micro machine), and a secondary cast noble alloy superstructure was luted on each primary galvanic cap with a resin cement (Nimetic Cem). In the control group, prefabricated burn-out caps were used for casting the metal frameworks. Test and control crowns were cemented using a resin cement (Panavia 21). After storage at 37 degrees for 24 h, the specimens were subjected to a pull-out test using an Instron universal testing machine. The load required to dislodge each sample and the respective mode of failure were recorded. Means and standard deviations of loads at failure were analyzed using ANOVA. Statistical significance was set at P< or =0.05. RESULTS: The retention values (+/-SD) of loads at failure were 67.26 (+/-16.61) for the test group and 44.03 (+/-9.45) for the control group. In the test group no separation occurred between the electroformed (galvanic) primary cap and the secondary superstructure. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that this prosthetic solution is superior on retentive performance than the conventional cast framework. An added clinical advantage of this novel method is its potential to provide a totally passive fit. Further in vitro and in vivo studies involving multiple-unit restorations are needed in order to more generally validate this prosthetic concept.

Cementation↗
PubMed2006

Intra-operative evaluation of cementless hip implant stability: a prototype device based on vibration analysis.

Cementless implants are mechanically stabilized during surgery by a press-fitting procedure. Good initial stability is crucial to avoid stem loosening and bone cracking, therefore, the surgeon must achieve optimal press-fitting. A possible approach to solve this problem and assist the surgeon in achieving the optimal compromise, involves the use of vibration analysis. The present study aimed to design and test a prototype device able to evaluate the primary mechanical stability of a cementless prosthesis, based on vibration analysis. In particular, the goal was to discriminate between stable and quasi-stable implants; thus the stem-bone system was assumed to be linear in both cases. For that reason, it was decided to study the frequency responses of the system, instead of the harmonic distortion. The prototype developed consists of a piezoelectric exciter connected to the stem and an accelerometer attached to the femur. Preliminary tests were performed on four composite femurs implanted with a conventional stem. The results showed that the input signal was repeatable and the output could be recorded accurately. The most sensitive parameter to stability was the shift in resonance frequency of the stem-bone system, which was highly correlated with residual micromotion on all four specimens.

Cementation↗