Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Restorative Dentistry

2019; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: S1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/ipd.12528

1365-263X

Tarun Walia, M Mohsen-Ziadkhani, A Amjad-Khayat, Dimitri Gutiérrez, Xiaohong Chen, H Zhang, Jie Zhong, A Guzmán, D F Hoyos, M Ortega-Santiago, Miguel-Angel Gómez Sánchez, Loris Antelo Vázquez, H Saber, Rania Nasr, P Minchala, Sandro Alexander Lévano Loayza, Andrés Cabrera, Gabriel Vargas, Francisco Javier Cevallos, C Egas,

dental development and anomalies

Background: In the last years, the zirconia crowns have become a new alternative in the restoration of temporary teeth.This crown offers superior nature replicating esthetics, durability and easy placement.Aim: Comparison of the strength in various cements used for primary zirconia crowns.Design: This in-vitro study was carried out on 60 prefabricated zirconia crowns (15 each from Nusmile ZR, Kinder Krowns, Cheng, Sprig EZ) and 5 stainless steel crowns as a control.65 crowns dyes were prepared with composite core build-up material.Uncemented crowns and prepared dyes, except NuSmile crowns, were placed in artificial saliva for 2 min.Followed by rinsing with water, drying and then cemented in all 60 primary zirconia crowns with the dyes.Three luting types of cement: NuSmile BioCem, FujiCem 2 and Ketac Cem were used to cement 5 zirconia crowns of each manufacturer type, while stainless steel crowns were cemented with Ketac Cem.Crowns and dyes were subjected to 5,000 cycles of thermocycling at 5°C and 55°C.The samples were then stored in artificial saliva at 37°C in the incubator for 1 week to mimic the oral environment.The bond strength required to dislodge the crown from the composite tooth replica was tested using the universal testing machine with results recorded in Newtons.Results: There were no significant differences in retention rates between different brands of primary zirconia crowns; however, significant differences were observed between the types of luting cements used.Anova was significant while Tukey's HSD multiple comparison indicated FujiCem 2 and BioCem were significantly more retentive than Ketac Cem.The bond strength with FujiCem 2 and BioCem was also significantly higher than that of the controlled group which was cemented with GIC.Conclusions: The type of primary zirconia crowns did not significantly affect the tensile bond strength; however, luting cement type did matter with FujiCem 2 being more retentive than the other types of cements tested. | Use of zirconia crowns in pediatric dentistry for the treatment of dental agenesis: A case report