Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns

452
marginal gap size of 120 mm (as defined by Mc Lean
and Von Frauenhofer [40]) in all test groups. As in
our own study, White et al. [9] did not find any
correlation between marginal gaps and microleakage.
Their study examined full cast crowns made of
a non-precious alloy that had been cemented with a
zinc-phosphate cement (Flecks; Mizzy, Cherry Hill,
NJ, USA), a polycarboxylate cement (Durelon; 3M
ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), a glass–ionomer cement
(Ketac-Cem; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), a microfilled
resin with dentin bonding (Thin Film Cement
and Tenure; Den Mat Corp., Santa Maria, CA, USA),
and a resin cement (Panavia Ex; Kuraray, Osaka,
Japan). Nor did the study of Lindquist and Connolly
[10] find any correlation between microleakage and
marginal gap when using a zinc-phosphate cement
(Flecks; Mizzy, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA) and a resinmodified
glass–ionomer cement (Vitremer (now
RelyX Luting); 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). However,
more research is needed to determine the
relationships between restoration-associated diseases
and the variables of microleakage, marginal
opening, and host factors.
Although we used established protocols to
simulate the oral environment, the real-life
scenario is too complex to be fully reproduced
by experimental set-ups of this type. On balance,
it is reasonable to assume that the data obtained
in the various study groups constituted a viable
basis for comparison. In clinical practice, however,
additional factors such as biocompatibility,
thermal/electric conductivity, ease of use, and,
most important, the specific requirements of each
case (e.g. height of the residual tooth structure
and preparation angle) must enter the equation to
find out which cementing agent is most
appropriate.
Conclusions
1. None of the cementing agents investigated in
this study yielded a perfect seal at the bonding
interface in enamel or dentin.
2. All cementing agents investigated were associated
with higher degrees of microleakage when
the tooth substrate was located in dentin.
3. The self-adhesive universal resin cement (RelyX
Unicem) revealed the smallest degree of microleakage
both in enamel and in dentin.
4. After artificial aging differences in the marginal
gap quality were observed.
5. An association between marginal gap and microleakage
was not observed.
References
A. Piwowarczyk et al.
[1] Crim GA, Chapman KW. Reducing microleakage in class II
restorations: an in vitro study. Quintessence Int 1994;25:
781–5.
[2] Bergenholtz G, Cox CF, Loesche WJ, Syed SA. Bacterial
leakage around dental restorations: its effect on the dental
pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:439–50.
[3] Cox CF, Keall CL, Keall HJ, Ostro E, Bergenholtz G.
Biocompatibility of surface-sealed dental materials against
exposed pulps. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:1–8.
[4] Going RE, Sawinski VJ. Microleakage of a new restorative
material. J Am Dent Assoc 1966;73:107–15.
[5] Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of
restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice.
Int Dent J 2000;50:362–6.
[6] Tjan AH, Dunn JR, Grant BE. Marginal leakage of cast gold
crowns luted with an adhesive resin cement. J Prosthet
Dent 1992;67:11–15.
[7] Tjan AH, Peach KD, VanDenburgh SL, Zbaraschuk ER.
Microleakage of crowns cemented with glass–ionomer
cement: effects of preparation finish and conditioning
with polyacrylic acid. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:602–6.
[8] White SN, Yu Z, Kipnis V. The effect of seating force on film
thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent
1992;68:476–81.
[9] White SN, Ingles S, Kipnis V. Influence of marginal opening
on microleakage of cemented artificial crowns. J Prosthet
Dent 1994;71:257–64.
[10] Lindquist TJ, Connolly J. In vitro microleakage of cementing
agents and crown foundation material. J Prosthet Dent
2001;85:292–8.
[11] Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC. Mechanical properties of luting
cements after water storage. Oper Dent 2003;28:535–42.
[12] Li ZC, White SN. Mechanical properties of dental luting
cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:597–609.
[13] Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of
adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth
substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16:265–73.
[14] Raskin A, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Dejou J.
Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature
review. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:295–308.
[15] Jorgensen KD. Factors affecting the film thickness of zincphosphate
cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1960;18:479–90.
[16] Wu W, Cobb EN. A silver staining technique for investigating
wear of restorative dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res
1981;15:343–8.
[17] White SN, Sorensen JA, Kang SK, Caputo AA. Microleakage
of new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents.
J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:156–61.
[18] Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations
in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:
405–8.
[19] Shortall AC, Fayyad MA, Williams JD. Marginal seal of
injection-molded ceramic crowns cemented with three
adhesive systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:24–7.
[20] Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Curing contraction of
composites and glass–ionomer-cements. J Prosthet Dent
1988;59:297–300.
[21] Inokoshi S, Willems G, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P,
Braem M, Vanherle G. Dual-cure luting composites. Part I:
filler particle distribution. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:133–46.
[22] Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage: the effect of
storage and cycling duration. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:
574–6.