Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 224-232
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708560
Original Article

Evaluation of Film Thickness of Crown Disclosing Agents and Their Comparison with Cement Film Thickness after Final Cementation

Syed Rashid Habib
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdul Sadekh Ansari
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental University Hospital, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Salwa Omar Bajunaid
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdullah Alshahrani
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Muhammad Qasim Javed
3   Department of Conservative Dental Sciences and Endodontics, Qassim University College of Dentistry, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations Funding This research project was approved by the College of Dentistry Research Center (Registration no. IR 0515) and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Verification of the accuracy of crown fit before final cementation is imperative. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the film thickness of commonly used dental crown disclosing materials and their comparison with final cement thickness.

Materials and Methods One hundred fifty provisional crowns (Protemp) were fabricated on standardized resin dies and divided into five groups (N = 150; n = 30) based on five disclosing agents: A = Fit-Checker auto-mix; B = Okklu-top; C = Express; D = Fit-Checker hand-mix; E = Coltene PSI, and Final cement = Relyx U200. Crowns were loaded with test materials, tried over dies under load (50N), and later cemented under same load. Film thickness (µm) was recorded between crown margin and the finish line of die after loading with test material and final cementation using a digital microscope.

Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, Tukey’s and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05).

Results Significant variations were found between the film thicknesses of the five disclosing agents (p = 0.019). Group-A showed the lowest (131.67 ± 101.10 μm), while group-B (295.00 ± 263.88 μm) showed the highest film thickness (p = 0.011). Film thicknesses after cementation were similar for groups (p = 0.957). Significant difference was observed for group-B disclosing agent versus final cement (p = 0.010). The lowest mean difference between the film thicknesses of the disclosing agent and final cementation of 13.1 μm was revealed for group-A.

Conclusions Variations in the film thicknesses of the tested disclosing agents were found. Fit-Checker auto-mix was found with minimal film thickness and satisfied the requirements as the disclosing agent, while Okklu-top aerosol spray did not.

Keywords

disclosing methods - fit checker - crown fit - dental crowns - dental crown disclosing materials - cement thickness - cementation - dental cement


Publication History

Article published online:
13 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Opdam N, Frankenberger R, Magne P. From ‘direct versus indirect’ toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition. Oper Dent 2016; 41 (S7) S27-S34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Alabdulkader MA, Habib SR. Effect of cement application techniques on the adaptation and retention of provisional crowns. Technol Health Care 2018; 26 (06) 945-955
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wilson PR. Crown behaviour during cementation. J Dent 1992; 20 (03) 156-162 Review
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Johnson GH, Lepe X, Patterson A, Schäfer O. Simplified cementation of lithium disilicate crowns: retention with various adhesive resin cement combinations. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (05) 826-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Krämer N, Möhwald M, Lücker S. et al. Effect of microparticulate silver addition in dental adhesives on secondary caries in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (07) 1673-1681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bagheri R. Film thickness and flow properties of resin-based cements at different temperatures. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013; 14 (02) 57-63
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Ladha K, Verma M. Conventional and contemporary luting cements: an overview. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010; 10 (02) 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Habib SR, Ali M, Al Hossan A, Majeed-Saidan A, Al Qahtani M. Effect of cementation, cement type and vent holes on fit of zirconia copings. Saudi Dent J 2019; 31 (01) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Björn AL, Björn H, Grkovic B. Marginal fit of restorations and its relation to periodontal bone level. II. Crowns. Odontol Revy 1970; 21 (03) 337-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966; 16 (02) 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9917–1:2007. Dentistry–water based cements–part 1: powder/liquid acid-base cements. Available at: http:// www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/ISOstore/store.html. Accessed November 30, 2019
  • 12 International Organization for Standardization. ISO No. 4049:2000. Dentistry–polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials. Geneva: ISO. Available at: http:// www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/ISOstore/store.html. Accessed November 30, 2019
  • 13 Zortuk M, Bolpaca P, Kilic K, Ozdemir E, Aguloglu S. Effects of finger pressure applied by dentists during cementation of all-ceramic crowns. Eur J Dent 2010; 4 (04) 383-388
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shillingburg Jr HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. et al. Principles of tooth preparations. In Shillingburg Jr HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. et al, eds. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997: 119-154
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Rosenstiel S, Land M, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Check the fit accuracy of prosthetics. Br Dent J 2014; 216: 204 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.139.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mirfazaelian A. Fabricating a fit checker. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83 (03) 376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kious AR, Roberts HW, Bracket WW. Film thickness of recently introduced luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 476-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 White SN, Yu Z. Film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67 (06) 782-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ushiwata O, de Moraes JV, Bottino MA, da Silva EG. Marginal fit of nickel-chromium copings before and after internal adjustments with duplicated stone dies and disclosing agent. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83 (06) 634-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Troendle GR, Troendle KB, Cavazos Jr E. Film thickness of four disclosing media. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65 (06) 856-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 White SN, Sorensen JA, Kang SK. Improved marginal seating of cast restorations using a silicone disclosing medium. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4 (04) 323-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Al Rifaiy MQ. Evaluation of vertical marginal adaptation of provisional crowns by digital microscope. Niger J Clin Pract 2017; 20 (12) 1610-1617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Habib SR. Digital microscopic evaluation of vertical marginal discrepancies of CAD/CAM fabricated zirconia cores. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2019; 64 (02) 207-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Özçelik TB, Yilmaz B, Şeker E, Shah K. Marginal adaptation of provisional CAD/CAM restorations fabricated using various simulated digital cement space settings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (05) 1064-1069
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Pohjola RM. FIT CHECKER for all ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29 (03) 346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jahangiri L, Estafan D. A method of verifying and improving internal fit of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95 (01) 82-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Keys LG. An alternate method of verifying the seating of all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87 (04) 411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kamble SS, Khandeparker RV, Somasundaram P, Raghav S, Babaji RP, Varghese TJ. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of elastomeric impression materials when treated with autoclave, microwave, and chemical disinfection. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7 (09) 22-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Joshi P, Bhat GS, Shenoy V. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone and condensation silicone impression materials - an invitro study. J Nepal Dent Assoc 2009; 10: 88-96
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51 (03) 629-642, vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar