Light curing through glass ceramics: effect of curing mode on micromechanical properties of dual-curing resin cements

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate micromechanical properties of five dual-curing resin cements after different curing modes including light curing through glass ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Vickers hardness (VH) and indentation modulus (Y HU) of Panavia F2.0, RelyX Unicem 2 Automix, SpeedCEM, BisCem, and BeautiCem SA were measured after 1 week of storage (37 °C, 100 % humidity). The resin cements were tested following self-curing or light curing with the second-generation light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit Elipar FreeLight 2 in Standard Mode (1,545 mW/cm(2)) or with the third-generation LED curing unit VALO in High Power Mode (1,869 mW/cm(2)) or in XtraPower Mode (3,505 mW/cm(2)). Light curing was performed directly or through glass ceramic discs of 1.5 or 3 mm thickness of IPS Empress CAD or IPS e.max CAD. VH and Y HU were analysed with Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS RelyX Unicem 2 Automix resulted in the highest VH and Y HU followed by BeautiCem SA, BisCem, SpeedCEM, and finally Panavia F2.0. Self-curing of RelyX Unicem 2 Automix and SpeedCEM lowered VH and Y HU compared to light curing whereas self-curing of Panavia F2.0, BisCem, and BeautiCem SA led to similar or significantly higher VH and Y HU compared to light curing. Generally, direct light curing resulted in similar or lower VH and Y HU compared to light curing through 1.5-mm-thick ceramic discs. Light curing through 3-mm-thick discs of IPS e.max CAD generally reduced VH and Y HU for all resin cements except SpeedCEM, which was the least affected by light curing through ceramic discs. CONCLUSIONS The resin cements responded heterogeneously to changes in curing mode. The applied irradiances and light curing times adequately cured the resin cements even through 1.5-mm-thick ceramic discs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE When light curing resin cements through thick glass ceramic restorations, clinicians should consider to prolong the light curing times even with LED curing units providing high irradiances.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs).

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs.

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.

Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.

Dentinhaftung von Zementen. Der Haftverbund von Zementen mit Dentin in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien

Einleitung: Die Anzahl zahnärztlicher Zemente sowie Restaurationsmaterialien steigt stetig. Die richtige Zementwahl für einen zuverlässigen Haftverbund zwischen Restaurationsmaterial und Zahnsubstanz ist von Interesse für den Kliniker. Ziel der vorliegenden in vitro-Studie war es daher, den Dentinhaftverbund von verschiedenen Zementen in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: Zylindrische Probekörper aus sechs Restaurationsmaterialien (Goldlegierung, Titan, Feldspat-Keramik, Leuzit-Glaskeramik, Zirkon sowie Komposit) wurden an einem Ende plangeschliffen und sandgestrahlt. Die Zylinder aus Feldspat-Keramik und Leuzit-Glaskeramik wurden zusätzlich mit Flusssäure geätzt und silanisiert. Die Zylinder wurden anschliessend mit acht Zementen auf plangeschliffenes Dentin extrahierter menschlicher Zähne zementiert (ein Zink-Phosphatzement (DeTrey Zinc), ein konventioneller Glasionomerzement (Fuji I), ein kunststoffmodifizierter Glasionomerzement (Fuji Plus), ein "etch-&-rinse" Kompositzement (Variolink II), zwei "self-etch" Kompositzemente (Panavia F2.0 und Multilink) und zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzemente (RelyX Unicem Aplicap und Maxcem)). Nach einwöchiger Wasserlagerung bei 37°C wurden die Dentinhaftwerte der Zylinder (n=8 pro Gruppe) mittels Scherkraft-Test gemessen. Zusätzlich wurde das Frakturmuster unter dem Lichtmikroskop bestimmt. Die Haftwerte wurden mittels zweifaktorieller ANOVA und einem post hoc-Test analysiert (Signifikanzniveau α = 0.05). Resultate: Sowohl das Restaurationsmaterial wie auch der Zement hatten einen statistisch signifikanten Effekt auf den Haftverbund. Der Zink-Phosphatzement sowie beide Glasionomerzemente zeigten die niedrigsten Haftwerte. Die höchsten Haftwerte wurden mit beiden "self-etch" und einem der zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzementen erzielt. Im Allgemeinen variierte das Frakturmuster deutlich je nach Zement und Restaurationsmaterial. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Dentinhaftverbund wurde stärker vom Zement beeinflusst als vom Restaurationsmaterial. Die Kompositzemente erzielten im Grossen und Ganzen die höchsten Haftwerte.

Immediate shear bond strengths of a composite, a compomer and a glass ionomer to a ceramic substrate.

PURPOSE To determine the best-performing combination of three core buildup materials and three bonding materials based on their bond strength to ceramic blocks in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS The materials used for core buildup were a composite (Tetric EvoCeram), a compomer (Compoglass F), and a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Fil Plus), and for bonding, a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Syntac), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (ExciTE), and a single-step system (RelyX Unicem). Bond strength to ceramic blocks was determined by shear bond strength testing. Fracture behavior was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS The highest adhesive values between buildup and ceramic were obtained using the materials Compoglass F and Syntac, followed by Compoglass F and ExciTE. Among the two other core buildups, Tetric EvoCeram performed better than Ketac Fil Plus, which was independent of the bonding materials. Adhesive fractures were characteristically observed with Syntac and ExciTE, and cohesive fractures were characteristically observed with RelyX Unicem. CONCLUSION These data show that compomers bonded with a multistep adhesive system achieved statistically significantly higher shear bond strength than composites and glass-ionomer cements. Within the limitations inherent to this in vitro study, the use of compomers for core buildup can be recommended.

Light curing through glass ceramics with a second- and a third-generation LED curing unit: effect of curing mode on the degree of conversion of dual-curing resin cements

Objectives The aim of this study was to measure the degree of conversion (DC) of five dual-curing resin cements after different curing modes with a second- and a third-generation light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit. Additionally, irradiance of both light curing units was measured at increasing distances and through discs of two glass ceramics for computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Materials and methods Irradiance and spectra of the Elipar FreeLight 2 (Standard Mode (SM)) and of the VALO light curing unit (High Power Mode (HPM) and Xtra Power Mode (XPM)) were measured with a MARC radiometer. Irradiance was measured at increasing distances (control) and through discs (1.5 to 6 mm thickness) of IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD. DC of Panavia F2.0, RelyX Unicem 2 Automix, SpeedCEM, BisCem, and BeautiCem SA was measured with an attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared spectrometer when self-cured (negative control) or light cured in SM for 40 s, HPM for 32 s, or XPM for 18 s. Light curing was performed directly (positive control) or through discs of either 1.5- or 3-mm thickness of IPS Empress CAD or IPS e.max CAD. DC was analysed with Kruskal–Wallis tests followed by pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests (α = 0.05). Results Maximum irradiances were 1,545 mW/cm2 (SM), 2,179 mW/cm2 (HPM), and 4,156 mW/cm2 (XPM), and all irradiances decreased by >80 % through discs of 1.5 mm, ≥95 % through 3 mm, and up to >99 % through 6 mm. Generally, self-curing resulted in the lowest DC. For some cements, direct light curing did not result in higher DC compared to when light cured through ceramic discs. For other cements, light curing through ceramic discs of 3 mm generally reduced DC. Conclusions Light curing was favourable for dual-curing cements. Some cements were more susceptible to variations in curing mode than others. Clinical relevance When light curing a given cement, the higher irradiances of the third-generation LED curing unit resulted in similar DC compared to the second-generation one, though at shorter light curing times.