Effects of tooth preparation burs and luting cement types on the marginal fit of extracoronal restorations.

PURPOSE Although surface roughness of axial walls could contribute to precision of a cast restoration, it is unclear how the roughness of tooth preparation affects marginal fit of the restoration in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the morphologic features of dentin surfaces prepared by common rotary instruments of similar shapes and to determine their effects on the marginal fit for complete cast crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety crowns were cast for standardized complete crown tooth preparations. Diamond, tungsten carbide finishing, and crosscut carbide burs of similar shape were used (N = 30). The crowns in each group were subdivided into three groups (n = 10) for use with different luting cements: zinc phosphate cement (Fleck's), glass ionomer cement (Ketac-Cem), and adhesive resin cement (Panavia 21). Marginal fit was measured with a light microscope in a plane parallel to the tooth surface before and after cementation between four pairs of index indentations placed at equal distances around the circumference of each specimen. Difference among groups was tested for statistical significance with analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Multiple Range Test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS Analysis of measurements disclosed a statistically significant difference for burs used to finish tooth preparations (p < 0.001); however, luting cement measurements were not significantly different (p= 0.152). Also, the interaction effect was not significantly different (p= 0.685). For zinc phosphate cement, the highest marginal discrepancy value (100 +/- 106 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with carbide burs, and the lowest discrepancy value (36 +/- 30 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with finishing burs. For glass ionomer cement, the highest marginal discrepancy value (61 +/- 47 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with carbide burs, and the lowest discrepancy value (33 +/- 40 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with finishing burs. For adhesive resin cement, the highest marginal discrepancy value (88 +/- 81 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with carbide burs, and the lowest discrepancy value (19 +/- 17 microm) was for tooth preparations refined with finishing burs. CONCLUSIONS Marginal fit of complete cast crowns is influenced by tooth preparation surface characteristics, regardless of the type of luting agent used for cementation. Tooth preparations refined with finishing burs may favor the placement of restorations with the smallest marginal discrepancies, regardless of the type of cement used.

[1]  M. Tuntiprawon,et al.  Effect of tooth surface roughness on marginal seating and retention of complete metal crowns. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  M I MacEntee,et al.  Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  J Chai,et al.  A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[4]  M Helft,et al.  Comparison of methods of clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of complete cast gold crowns. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  I. Lewinstein,et al.  Improving the fit of crowns with die spacers. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  S. Bayne,et al.  Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  X. Lepe,et al.  A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  K. Gabriel,et al.  A Study of the Powers of Several Methods of Multiple Comparisons , 1975 .

[9]  Rosenstiel Sf,et al.  Mixing variables of zinc phosphate cement and their influence on the seating and retention of complete crowns. , 1989 .

[10]  J. Cunningham,et al.  Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs. , 2001, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[11]  G H Johnson,et al.  Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  Z. Yu,et al.  Film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  J R Gavelis,et al.  The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  R. Owen,et al.  A Bayesian Sequential Procedure for Quantal Response in the Context of Adaptive Mental Testing , 1975 .

[15]  S A Aquilino,et al.  Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  John F Bowley,et al.  Axial-wall inclination angle and vertical height interactions in molar full crown preparations. , 2007, Journal of dentistry.

[17]  A. H. Tjan,et al.  Marginal leakage of cast gold crowns luted with an adhesive resin cement. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  I L Dogon,et al.  Factors affecting the seating and fit of complete crowns: a computer simulation study. , 1986, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  A H Tjan,et al.  Effect of preparation finish on retention and fit of complete crowns. , 1986, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  A. Windeler,et al.  Glass-ionomer cement film thickness and working time. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  J. Mclean,et al.  The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique , 1971, British Dental Journal.

[22]  P. Barbe,et al.  Effect of preparation convergence on retention and seating discrepancy of complete veneer crowns. , 2004, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[23]  Takao Fusayama,et al.  Relief of resistance of cement of full cast crowns , 1964 .

[24]  S F Rosenstiel,et al.  Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[25]  S. Bayne,et al.  Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[26]  P R L'Estrange,et al.  Clinical evaluation of restoration margins by an endoscopic microscope. , 1991, Australian dental journal.

[27]  W B Eames,et al.  Techniques to improve the seating of castings. , 1978, Quintessence of dental technology.

[28]  D C Sarrett,et al.  Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of four finishing techniques on margins of gold castings. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[29]  D A Kaiser,et al.  Marginal distortion of cast restorations induced by cementation. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[30]  S. Rosenstiel,et al.  Improving the cementation of complete cast crowns: a comparison of static and dynamic seating methods. , 1988, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[31]  P. Wilson Effect of increasing cement space on cementation of artificial crowns. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[32]  S F Rosenstiel,et al.  Influence of tooth surface roughness and type of cement on retention of complete cast crowns. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[33]  S N White,et al.  Effect of adhesive luting agents on the marginal seating of cast restorations. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.