IADR Abstract Archives
Luting Strategies of Ceramic Crowns: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Objectives: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the performance over time of single-unit ceramic crowns cemented with two types of luting agents.
Methods: This study had a split mouth design. A total of 60 single-unit crowns in anterior and posterior teeth were cemented in 30 patients. The coping infrastructure was milled out of a pre-sintered Y-TZP block (Cercon Base, Dentsply) using a CAD/CAM system and then post-sintered. A wax modelling was performed and the press-on ceramic Cercom Ceram Press (Dentsply) was pressed onto the coping. Each patient received two single-unit ceramic crowns, which were luted with either a self-adhesive resinous cement (Bifix-SE, Voco) or with a glass ionomer cement (Meron, Voco). Patients were assessed immediately after treatment (baseline) and over time (6, 12 and 24 months) following the modified USPHS criteria and additional parameters, including retention, color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, anatomic form, secondary caries, chipping and pulpal status. Besides that, the plaque index, gingival index and bleeding index were also evaluated. For all parameters the scores A(alfa), B(Bravo) and C(Charlie) were applied, according to the quality of the restoration.
Results: 28 patients attended the 6-month, 27 the one-year and 24 the two-year recall. After two years, two crowns cemented with Bifix SE and one cemented with Meron lost its retention (score C), with a retention rate of 93.4% and 96.7%, respectively. In a total of 60 crowns in both groups, just 3 presented small chipping (score B) and 2 produced enamel wear of the opposite tooth (score B). For the other parameters, 100% of the crowns presented score A in both groups. Non significant differences were observed between the groups for all parameters (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The ceramic crowns cemented with Meron and Bifix SE presented similar clinical performance after 24 months of clinical use.
Methods: This study had a split mouth design. A total of 60 single-unit crowns in anterior and posterior teeth were cemented in 30 patients. The coping infrastructure was milled out of a pre-sintered Y-TZP block (Cercon Base, Dentsply) using a CAD/CAM system and then post-sintered. A wax modelling was performed and the press-on ceramic Cercom Ceram Press (Dentsply) was pressed onto the coping. Each patient received two single-unit ceramic crowns, which were luted with either a self-adhesive resinous cement (Bifix-SE, Voco) or with a glass ionomer cement (Meron, Voco). Patients were assessed immediately after treatment (baseline) and over time (6, 12 and 24 months) following the modified USPHS criteria and additional parameters, including retention, color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, anatomic form, secondary caries, chipping and pulpal status. Besides that, the plaque index, gingival index and bleeding index were also evaluated. For all parameters the scores A(alfa), B(Bravo) and C(Charlie) were applied, according to the quality of the restoration.
Results: 28 patients attended the 6-month, 27 the one-year and 24 the two-year recall. After two years, two crowns cemented with Bifix SE and one cemented with Meron lost its retention (score C), with a retention rate of 93.4% and 96.7%, respectively. In a total of 60 crowns in both groups, just 3 presented small chipping (score B) and 2 produced enamel wear of the opposite tooth (score B). For the other parameters, 100% of the crowns presented score A in both groups. Non significant differences were observed between the groups for all parameters (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The ceramic crowns cemented with Meron and Bifix SE presented similar clinical performance after 24 months of clinical use.