Author:
Zhang Haiyang,Yu Hao,Jiang Shangfei,Dong Haidao,Yan Chengdong,Liu Hong,Li Qing,Jiang Haiwei
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Microleakage is a common problem that affects the quality and longevity of all-ceramic crowns. It is influenced by factors such as the resin cement, crown margin design and curing technique. However, few studies focus on the effect of different methods of removing excess resin adhesive on the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns. This study aimed to compare two methods of removing excess resin adhesive (the small brush and sickle methods) on the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns with different marginal clearances.
Methods
Forty extracted third molars were prepared with a 90° shoulder margin and randomly divided into four groups according to their marginal lift (30, 60, 90 or 0 μm). Procera alumina crowns were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided modelling and cemented onto the teeth with 3 M RelyX Unicem (3 M Company, United States) resin cement. Excess resin cement was removed by either the small brush or the sickle scalpel method. The marginal adaptation was observed with a digital microscope. After thermal cycling of the teeth, microleakage was assessed using the dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope. The Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis H test were used to compare the microleakage scores among different groups.
Results
The small-brush group showed significantly better marginal adaptation and lower microleakage scores than the sickle group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the microleakage score (grade 0) among different marginal clearances within each group (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
The small-brush method was more effective than the sickle scalpel method in reducing the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns with different marginal clearances. This method can improve the marginal adaptation and sealability of all-ceramic crowns, thus preventing secondary caries and other complications.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference21 articles.
1. Ferruzzi F, Ferrairo BM, Piras FF, et al. Fatigue survival and damage modes of lithium disilicate and resin nanoceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180297.
2. Son K, Lee S, Kang SH, et al. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit Assessment methods for fixed Dental Prostheses. J Clin Med. 2019;8(6):785.
3. Alsagob EI, Bardwell DN, Ali AO, et al. Comparison of microleakage between bulk-fill flowable and nanofilled resin-based composites. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2018;10(2):102–9.
4. Ferracane JL. Models of Caries formation around Dental Composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2017;96(4):364–71.
5. Karbasi Kheir M, Khayam L. Comparison of the Ability of Two Brands of CBCT with That of SEM to Detect the Marginal Leakage of Class V Composite Resin Restorations. ScientificWorldJournal, 2021, 2021: 6688554.