Tensile bond strength between paediatric prefabricated zirconia crowns and primary maxillary incisors when using various types of luting cements: an in vitro study.

IF 2.3 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1007/s40368-024-00890-x

P Pengpue, V Sirimaharaj, P Chaijareenont, W Chinadet

{"title":"Tensile bond strength between paediatric prefabricated zirconia crowns and primary maxillary incisors when using various types of luting cements: an in vitro study.","authors":"P Pengpue, V Sirimaharaj, P Chaijareenont, W Chinadet","doi":"10.1007/s40368-024-00890-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: There is limited evidence regarding the most appropriate type of luting cement for paediatric prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) in primary maxillary incisors. The retention of PZCs is dependent on the bond strength of luting cement between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the tensile bond strengths between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors with different types of luting cements.Methods: Thirty freshly extracted human primary maxillary incisors were prepared and randomly divided into three groups corresponding to three luting cements: bioactive cement, resin cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and then restored with PZCs. Tensile bond strengths were evaluated by a universal testing machine. The results were analysed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05).Results: The means of the tensile bond strengths were 1.43 ± 0.85 MPa, 0.91 ± 0.63 MPa, and 0.56 ± 0.39 MPa for the bioactive cement, resin cement, and RMGIC groups, respectively. A significant difference in tensile bond strength was observed between the bioactive cement and the RMGIC group (p < 0.05) but there was no significant difference in tensile bond strength between the resin cement group and the others.Conclusion: Types of luting cement influenced the tensile bond strength between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors. The bioactive cement showed higher tensile bond strength than the resin cement and RMGIC.","PeriodicalId":47603,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"471-479"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-024-00890-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: There is limited evidence regarding the most appropriate type of luting cement for paediatric prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) in primary maxillary incisors. The retention of PZCs is dependent on the bond strength of luting cement between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the tensile bond strengths between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors with different types of luting cements.

Methods: Thirty freshly extracted human primary maxillary incisors were prepared and randomly divided into three groups corresponding to three luting cements: bioactive cement, resin cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and then restored with PZCs. Tensile bond strengths were evaluated by a universal testing machine. The results were analysed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05).

Results: The means of the tensile bond strengths were 1.43 ± 0.85 MPa, 0.91 ± 0.63 MPa, and 0.56 ± 0.39 MPa for the bioactive cement, resin cement, and RMGIC groups, respectively. A significant difference in tensile bond strength was observed between the bioactive cement and the RMGIC group (p < 0.05) but there was no significant difference in tensile bond strength between the resin cement group and the others.

Conclusion: Types of luting cement influenced the tensile bond strength between PZCs and primary maxillary incisors. The bioactive cement showed higher tensile bond strength than the resin cement and RMGIC.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

儿科预制氧化锆牙冠与上颌原切牙之间的拉伸粘接强度（使用各种类型的粘接剂）：体外研究。

目的：关于儿童上颌原切牙预制氧化锆冠（PZC）最合适的粘结剂类型，目前证据有限。PZC的固位取决于PZC和上颌原切牙之间的粘结强度。本研究的目的是评估 PZC 与上颌原切牙之间不同类型的粘结水门汀的拉伸粘结强度：制备 30 颗新鲜拔出的人类上颌原切牙，并将其随机分为三组，分别与生物活性水门汀、树脂水门汀和树脂改性玻璃离聚体水门汀（RMGIC）这三种粘结水门汀相对应，然后用 PZCs 进行修复。拉伸粘结强度由万能试验机进行评估。结果采用单因素方差分析和 Tukey 后检验（p）进行分析：生物活性水门汀组、树脂水门汀组和 RMGIC 组的拉伸粘结强度平均值分别为 1.43 ± 0.85 MPa、0.91 ± 0.63 MPa 和 0.56 ± 0.39 MPa。生物活性水门汀组和 RMGIC 组的拉伸粘结强度存在明显差异（p 结论：生物活性水门汀组和 RMGIC 组的拉伸粘结强度存在明显差异：粘结水泥的类型会影响 PZC 和上颌原切牙之间的拉伸粘结强度。生物活性粘结剂的拉伸粘结强度高于树脂粘结剂和 RMGIC。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： The aim and scope of European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) is to promote research in all aspects of dentistry for children, including interceptive orthodontics and studies on children and young adults with special needs. The EAPD focuses on the publication and critical evaluation of clinical and basic science research related to children. The EAPD will consider clinical case series reports, followed by the relevant literature review, only where there are new and important findings of interest to Paediatric Dentistry and where details of techniques or treatment carried out and the success of such approaches are given.