Primary evaluation of microleakage of crowns made of two restorative materials with the use of two cements
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Microleakage has been considered as one of the important factors in a restoration longevity. According to the introduction of new materials (ceramics and reinforced composites) in fixed prosthodontics and the use of bonding techniques in cementation, microleakage of these...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN FA |
| Publicado: |
Babol University of Medical Sciences
2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d701abb368d540d4879901d5a3fcc578 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Microleakage has been considered as one of the important factors in a restoration longevity. According to the introduction of new materials (ceramics and reinforced composites) in fixed prosthodontics and the use of bonding techniques in cementation, microleakage of these materials with the use of two cements was evaluated in this study.METHODS: In this experimental study, forty human upper and lower premolar teeth were divided equally into two groups. Group1was allocated to ceramic restorative material (IPS Empress II) and group 2 was allocated to a reinforced composite restorative material (Targis & Vectris). In each group, samples were divided into two subgroups: ten were cemented with one resin cement (Variolink) and the others were cemented with (Dual) resin cement. After standard preparations for each material, relevant crowns were made and luted. After die penetration, the samples were sectioned and the extent of microleakage was assessed by reflective microscope and then the statistical analyses were performed (one way anova and t-test).FINDINGS: The group assortments according to the least to the most were: group 2 (Ipse II – Variolink) (0.04670), group 1 (IPSE II-Dual) (0.4750), group 4 (T;V-Variolink) (0.5438) and group 3 (T;V-Dual) (0.7625). Of course there were no significant differences among groups. A comparison between two types of cements, types of restorative materials and types of teeth, showed no significant differences. The level of microleakage was very low (according to the score selected). In only four samples high values were noted. The maximum amount of microleakage was at the cement– dentin interface.CONCLUSION: According to obtained results of this study, there was no significant difference among tested groups. It’s crucial for this study to be done with higher sample volume in order to define the best group. |
|---|