» Articles » PMID: 37951856

Effects of Different Removal Methods of Excess Resin Adhesive on the Microleakage of Alumina All-ceramic Crowns

Overview
Journal BMC Oral Health
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2023 Nov 11
PMID 37951856
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

References
1.
Alsagob E, Bardwell D, Ali A, Khayat S, Stark P . Comparison of microleakage between bulk-fill flowable and nanofilled resin-based composites. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2018; 10(2):102-109. PMC: 6167621. DOI: 10.1556/1646.10.2018.07. View

2.
Son K, Lee S, Kang S, Park J, Lee K, Jeon M . A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(6). PMC: 6617221. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060785. View

3.
Pyo S, Kim D, Han J, Yeo I . Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(8). PMC: 7216107. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081964. View

4.
McLean J, VON Fraunhofer J . The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971; 131(3):107-11. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708. View

5.
Spitznagel F, Balmer M, Wiedemeier D, Jung R, Gierthmuehlen P . Clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 33(1):1-20. PMC: 9297865. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871. View