Next Article in Journal
Effect of Alkali-Acid-Heat Chemical Surface Treatment on Electron Beam Melted Porous Titanium and Its Apatite Forming Ability
Next Article in Special Issue
Bone Regeneration Using Bone Morphogenetic Proteins and Various Biomaterial Carriers
Previous Article in Journal
A Six-Fold Symmetric Metamaterial Absorber
Previous Article in Special Issue
All-Ceramic Single Crown Restauration of Zirconia Oral Implants and Its Influence on Fracture Resistance: An Investigation in the Artificial Mouth
Open AccessArticle

Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns

Dental Clinic, University of Ferrara, Giovecca 203, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, v. Saragat 1, 44122 Ferrara, Italy
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Ihtesham ur Rehman
Materials 2015, 8(4), 1604-1611;
Received: 17 January 2015 / Revised: 28 March 2015 / Accepted: 31 March 2015 / Published: 7 April 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Materials)
No studies are available that evaluate the retention of disilicate crowns according to different cementation procedures. The purpose of this study was to measure the retention of lithium disilicate crowns cemented using two different cementation systems. Twenty extracted mandibular premolars were prepared. Anatomic crowns were waxed and hot pressed using lithium disilicate ceramic. Teeth were divided into two groups (n = 10): (1) self-curing luting composite and (2) glass-ionomer cement (GIC). After cementation, the crowns were embedded in acrylic resin block with a screw base. Each specimen was pulled along the path of insertion in Universal Testing Machine. Failure load in Newtons (N) and failure mode were recorded for each specimen. Failure mode was classified as decementation or fracture. Failure load data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Failure modes were compared using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Mean failure load was 306.6(±193.8) N for composite group and 94.7(±48.2) N for GIC group (p = 0.004). Disilicate crown cemented with luting composite most often failed by fracture; otherwise, crown cemented with glass-ionomer cement most often failed by decementation (p = 0.02). Disilicate full crown cemented with luting composite showed higher failure load compared with conventional cementation with glass-ionomer cement. View Full-Text
Keywords: crowns; dental cement; lithium disilicate crowns; all-ceramics crowns; dental cement; lithium disilicate crowns; all-ceramics
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mobilio, N.; Fasiol, A.; Mollica, F.; Catapano, S. Effect of Different Luting Agents on the Retention of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns. Materials 2015, 8, 1604-1611.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop