IF 1.5 4区 医学Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINEPediatric dentistryPub Date : 2023-03-15
Samuel Raj Srinivasan, Mebin George Mathew, Jayakumar Jayaraman
{"title":"三种Luting胶合剂用于预制氧化锆冠在第一磨牙中的比较:一项36个月的随机临床试验。","authors":"Samuel Raj Srinivasan, Mebin George Mathew, Jayakumar Jayaraman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term clinical retention and gingival health of prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) in primary molar teeth cemented using three luting cements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary molar teeth restored with PZCs (n equals 30 per group) were cemented using glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (BioCem™), or adhesive resin cement (APC technique: air- particle abrasion, zirconia primer, composite resin). Crown retention, plaque accumulation, and gingival status were evaluated over three years; cumulative crown survival was assessed using Kalpan-Meier analysis. Plaque gingival scores were analyzed for within and between groups using repeated measures one-way analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survival of PZCs cemented using GIC was 76.7 percent, 70 percent for APC, and 50 percent for BioCem™ after three years. The mean survival for PZC in the GIC group (35.5 months) was significantly higher than for APC (34.7 months), and BioCem™ (33 months; P=0.019). Plaque accumulation around GIC-luted crowns was significantly lower (P<0.001; three-year follow-up); gingival outcomes were uniformly favorable between groups. No crown fracture was observed throughout the study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prefabricated zirconia crowns cemented using traditional glass ionomer cement have superior retention and lower plaque accumulation compared to BioCem™ and APC after three years. PZCs provided long-term favorable gingival health outcomes irrespective of the cement used for luting the crowns.</p>","PeriodicalId":19863,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric dentistry","volume":"45 2","pages":"117-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Three Luting Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns in Primary Molar Teeth: a 36-month Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Raj Srinivasan, Mebin George Mathew, Jayakumar Jayaraman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term clinical retention and gingival health of prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) in primary molar teeth cemented using three luting cements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary molar teeth restored with PZCs (n equals 30 per group) were cemented using glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (BioCem™), or adhesive resin cement (APC technique: air- particle abrasion, zirconia primer, composite resin). Crown retention, plaque accumulation, and gingival status were evaluated over three years; cumulative crown survival was assessed using Kalpan-Meier analysis. Plaque gingival scores were analyzed for within and between groups using repeated measures one-way analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survival of PZCs cemented using GIC was 76.7 percent, 70 percent for APC, and 50 percent for BioCem™ after three years. The mean survival for PZC in the GIC group (35.5 months) was significantly higher than for APC (34.7 months), and BioCem™ (33 months; P=0.019). Plaque accumulation around GIC-luted crowns was significantly lower (P<0.001; three-year follow-up); gingival outcomes were uniformly favorable between groups. No crown fracture was observed throughout the study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prefabricated zirconia crowns cemented using traditional glass ionomer cement have superior retention and lower plaque accumulation compared to BioCem™ and APC after three years. PZCs provided long-term favorable gingival health outcomes irrespective of the cement used for luting the crowns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"volume\":\"45 2\",\"pages\":\"117-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Three Luting Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns in Primary Molar Teeth: a 36-month Randomized Clinical Trial.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the long-term clinical retention and gingival health of prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) in primary molar teeth cemented using three luting cements.
Methods: Primary molar teeth restored with PZCs (n equals 30 per group) were cemented using glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (BioCem™), or adhesive resin cement (APC technique: air- particle abrasion, zirconia primer, composite resin). Crown retention, plaque accumulation, and gingival status were evaluated over three years; cumulative crown survival was assessed using Kalpan-Meier analysis. Plaque gingival scores were analyzed for within and between groups using repeated measures one-way analysis of variance.
Results: The survival of PZCs cemented using GIC was 76.7 percent, 70 percent for APC, and 50 percent for BioCem™ after three years. The mean survival for PZC in the GIC group (35.5 months) was significantly higher than for APC (34.7 months), and BioCem™ (33 months; P=0.019). Plaque accumulation around GIC-luted crowns was significantly lower (P<0.001; three-year follow-up); gingival outcomes were uniformly favorable between groups. No crown fracture was observed throughout the study period.
Conclusions: Prefabricated zirconia crowns cemented using traditional glass ionomer cement have superior retention and lower plaque accumulation compared to BioCem™ and APC after three years. PZCs provided long-term favorable gingival health outcomes irrespective of the cement used for luting the crowns.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Dentistry is the official publication of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry. It is published bi-monthly and is internationally recognized as the leading journal in the area of pediatric dentistry. The journal promotes the practice, education and research specifically related to the specialty of pediatric dentistry. This peer-reviewed journal features scientific articles, case reports and abstracts of current pediatric dental research.