Luciana Mendonça da Silva

Internal fit of two all-ceramic systems and metal-ceramic crowns

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the internal fit (IF) of glass-infiltrated alumina (ICA - In-Ceram Alumina), yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP - IPS e.max ZirCAD), and metal-ceramic (MC - Ni-Cr alloy) crowns. Material and Methods Sixty standardized resin-tooth replicas of a maxillary first molar were produced for crown placement and divided into 3 groups (n=20 each) according to the core material used (metal, ICA or Y-TZP). The IF of the crowns was measured using the replica technique, which employs a light body polyvinyl siloxane impression material to simulate the cement layer thickness. The data were analyzed according to the surfaces obtained for the occlusal space (OS), axial space (AS) and total mean (TM) using two-way ANOVA with Tukeys multiple comparison test (p<0.05). Results No differences among the different areas were detected in the MC group. For the Y-TZP and ICA groups, AS was statistically lower than both OS and TM. No differences in AS were observed among the groups. However, OS and TM showed significantly higher values for ICA and Y-TZP groups than MC group. Comparisons of ICA and Y-TZP revealed that OS was significantly lower for Y-TZP group, whereas no differences were observed for TM. Conclusions The total mean achieved by all groups was within the range of clinical acceptability. However, the metal-ceramic group demonstrated significantly lower values than the all-ceramic groups, especially in OS.

Do the Microshear Test Variables Affect the Bond Strength Values

Little is known about the effect of specimen preparation and testing protocols on the micro-shear bond strength (μSBS) results. To evaluate whether variations in polyethylene rod use affect (μSBS)). Human dentin disks were randomly distributed into six groups (n = 5): polyethylene tube (3 levels) and adhesive system (2 levels). In Group 1, polyethylene tubes filled with polymerized composite) were placed on adhesive covered surfaces. Tubes were removed 24 h after water storage, leaving the rods only. In Group 2, the same procedure was performed; however, tubes were kept in place during testing. In Group 3, composite rods without tubes were placed on adhesive covered dentin. In all groups, adhesives were photoactivated after positioning filled tubes/rods on adhesive covered surfaces. Specimens were tested under shear mode and the data subjected to a two-way ANOVA and Tukeys tests. Groups 1 and 2 resulted in statistically similar mean μSBS (P > 0.05); however, a greater number of pretest failures were observed for Group 1. Higher μSBS values were detected for Group 3, irrespective of adhesive system used (P < 0.05). Removing the polyethylene tube before composite rod is placed on dentin affects μSBS values.

INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT ADHESIVE SYSTEMS ON THE PULL-OUT BOND STRENGTH OF GLASS FIBER POSTS

This in vitro study evaluated the tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts (Reforpost – Angelus-Brazil) cemented to root dentin with a resin cement (RelyX ARC – 3M/ESPE) associated with two different adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond - 3M/ESPE and Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose (MP) Plus – 3M/ESPE), using the pull-out test. Twenty single-rooted human teeth with standardized root canals were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=10): G1- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel (3M/ESPE) + Adper Single Bond + #1 post (Reforpost – Angelus) + four #1 accessory posts (Reforpin – Angelus) + resin cement; G2- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel + Adper Scotchbond MP Plus + #1 post + four #1 accessory posts + resin cement. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days and submitted to the pull-out test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean values of bond strength (kgf) and standard deviation were: G1- 29.163 ± 7.123; G2- 37.752 ±13.054. Statistical analysis (Students t-test; α=0.05 showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the groups. Adhesive bonding failures between resin cement and root canal dentin surface were observed in both groups, with non-polymerized resin cement in the apical portion of the post space when Single Bond was used (G1). The type of adhesive system employed on the fiber post cementation did not influence the pull-out bond strength.