Does Resin Cement Type and Cement Preheating Influence the Marginal and Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns?

This paper assesses the effect of cement type and cement preheating on the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate single crown. Methods: 40 maxillary premolars were selected, restored with lithium disilicate single crowns. Teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 10) based on cement type (Panavia SA or LinkForce) and preheating temperature (25 °C or 54 °C). After fabrication of the restoration, cements were incubated at 25 °C or 54 °C for 24 h, and each crown was cemented to its corresponding tooth. After 24 h, all specimens were thermally aged to (10,000 thermal cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C), then load cycled for 240,000 cycles. Each specimen was then sectioned in bucco-palatal direction and inspected under a stereomicroscope at x45 magnification for marginal and internal fit evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed (significance at p ≤ 0.05 level). Results: At the mid-buccal finish line, mid-buccal wall, palatal cusp, mid-palatal wall, mid-palatal finish line, and palatal margin measuring points, there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 25 °C, while there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) at the other points. At all measuring points, except at the palatal cusp tip (p = 0.948) and palatal margin (p = 0.103), there was a statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 54 °C and the group cemented with LinkForce at 54 °C. Regardless of cement preheating, statistically significant differences were found in the buccal cusp tip, central groove, palatal cusp tip, and mid-palatal wall (p ≤ 0.05) in the lithium disilicate group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C, as well as the mid-palatal chamfer finish line and palatal margin in the LinkForce group cemented with Panavia SA at 25 °C and 54 °C. At the other measurement points, however, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The type of resin cement affects the internal and marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns. At most measuring points, the cement preheating does not improve the internal and marginal fit of all lithium disilicate crowns.

Lithium disilicate and peek implant-retained single crowns - a randomized, prospective clinical study

Introduction/Objective. Comparing two materials under the same conditions is the best way to define differences between them. PEEK is a polymer that has many possible uses in dentistry as already well-known lithium disilicate ceramics. The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant soft tissue healing and evaluate patient satisfaction with esthetics in different observation periods, as well as the success and survival rate of both types of crowns. Methods. The study was conducted as a clinical, prospective, randomized split-mouth study on 17 patients with bilaterally missing upper teeth of the same type, replaced with dental implants. Study outcomes have been analyzed with subjective (VAS scale) and objective parameters (MBI, MPI and PPD) baseline, six and twelve months after fixing crowns onto the implants. Results. Comparison of the results between PEEK and lithium disilicate crowns showed no statistical differences in terms of MPI, MBI and PPD in the observed periods. Analyzing MPI during observation periods in the PEEK group of crowns, statistical significance was registered between baseline values and after 6 months. Also, statistical significance was noticed in terms of PPD during the observation time both in the study and control group of crowns. Results for VAS for the esthetics showed no statistically significant difference between the groups, while VAS for restoration satisfaction showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion. This study showed that scores of the applied subjective and objective parameters can be a reliable tool to rate the clinical outcome of implant-retained single crowns over time.

Impact of cement type and abutment height on pull-off force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study

Background Pull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared. Methods Pull-off force of ZLS crowns on stock titanium abutments was evaluated concerning dental cement and abutment height. A total sample size of 64 stock abutments with heights of 3 mm (n = 32) and 5 mm (n = 32) was used. The ZLS crowns were cemented with four different types of cement (one temporary, two semi-permanent, and one permanent). After cementation, water storage, and thermocycling each sample was subjected to a pull-off test using a universal testing machine. Results The temporary cement showed the least pull-off force regardless of abutment height (3/5 mm: means 6 N/23 N), followed by the semi-permanent methacrylate-infiltrated zinc oxide cement (28 N/55 N), the semi-permanent methacrylate-based cement (103 N/163 N), and the permanent resin composite cement (238 N/820 N). Results of all types of cement differed statistically significantly from each other (p ≤ .012). The type of implant cement has an impact on the pull-off force of ZLS crowns and titanium abutments. Conclusions Permanent cements present higher retention than semi-permanent ones, and temporary cements present the lowest values. The abutment height had a subordinate impact.

Esthetic Rehabilitation of Anterior Dentition with Different Types of Ceramic Restorations: Two Case Reports

All-ceramic systems represent an excellent restorative alternative for fixed dental prostheses, single crowns, and veneers in the anterior dentition. With respect to improved mechanical properties, lithium disilicate ceramic material provide a broad range of indications, and extended veneers can serve as an alternative to full crowns. Although ceramic veneers represent a more conservative approach compared to crowns, the correct indication is essential to achieving the ideal outcome. The following case reports describe two types of fixed restorations of the anterior dentition: extended lithium disilicate ceramic veneers and lithium disilicate full crowns. Factors influencing treatment selection for each type of restorations are presented.